Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / October 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Show me your 20

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 12 Oct 2007 02:27 GMT
What does a 20 carb day look like to you? Do you watch calories at all
or do you just make yourself sick on steaks?   What if you had to stay
there *forever*, what would you do?

Personally , I eat a lot of eggs and hamburger, but I know I only have
to live like that for two weeks of induction. If I'm cutting carbs and
not on Induction ( which I've only officially done five times in ten
years) I'll eat Advantage bars, the tops of pizzas, cantaloupe, weird
food experiments,  etc.

Just curious.

c
diet recon
Jackie Patti - 12 Oct 2007 02:52 GMT
> What does a 20 carb day look like to you? Do you watch calories at all
> or do you just make yourself sick on steaks?   What if you had to stay
> there *forever*, what would you do?

Personally, I'd up the insulin and increase the carbs rather than stay
that low indefinetly.

I need my veggies.  I eat at closer to 100 grams (total carbs, I quit
doing the net business cause of laziness) a day and get to have some
fruit in there too.

> Personally , I eat a lot of eggs and hamburger, but I know I only have
> to live like that for two weeks of induction. If I'm cutting carbs and
> not on Induction ( which I've only officially done five times in ten
> years) I'll eat Advantage bars, the tops of pizzas, cantaloupe, weird
> food experiments,  etc.

When I feel a need to go back to induction, cause of carb-creep or such,
my favorite thing to do is roast a whole turkey.  I freeze half of it
right away cause I'll never get through a whole turkey.

First day or two is mostly turkey with the skin, then as I run out of
skin, I start adding mayo to the turkey, then day 3 or 4 I start adding
veggies back in.

Non-induction level meals are around at least half non-starchy veggies
on my plate with a moderate serving of protein: yogurt, cottage cheese,
eggs, hard cheese, roast beef, pork chops, etc.  One or two meals a day,
I add some low-sugar fruit for dessert: berries, melons, a kiwi.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 12 Oct 2007 19:34 GMT
> When I feel a need to go back to induction, cause of carb-creep or such,
> my favorite thing to do is roast a whole turkey.  I freeze half of it
> right away cause I'll never get through a whole turkey.

:). Yanno, that's actually a completely brilliant idea. I wish I
liked turkey -- something about the tryptophan gives me a squishy
stomach.

I've done insta-chickens from the grocery store, though. Never thought
to do the leftovers with lettuce and mayo, though, so I'll keep that
in my idea file.

c
mission go
UsenetID - 12 Oct 2007 04:29 GMT
> What does a 20 carb day look like to you? Do you watch calories at all
> or do you just make yourself sick on steaks?   What if you had to stay
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> years) I'll eat Advantage bars, the tops of pizzas, cantaloupe, weird
> food experiments,  etc.

We love our tilapia fried fast in a HOT pan in butter/oil (so the butter
doesn't burn) until it's crispy, for breakfast.  That, or a muffin bowl
(heavy on flax meal), or eggs fried in bacon fat, with bacon.  Lunches are
our big meal - a couple of pork chops or a steak, burgers fried up with
mushrooms, chicken thighs, whatever...plus any veg that'll take melted
cheese or just butter...favorites on busy days are meat of choice in the
electric skillet, browned, then add liquid and top with whatever veg is at
the front of the freezer, cover, and 10 minutes later it's a meal.  Supper
is light, usually soup (love the homemade "cream of" soups!) or salad loaded
with shrimp or bacon or pepperoni or tuna, and ranch/mayo mixed.  Don't
usually snack much, and we're not big on sweets/desserts although a couple
times a month I'll make something sweet that lasts us a few days...

This is how we eat probably 5 days out of every 7.  Weekends we tend to cut
loose and have a sandwich on low carb bread, bowl of popcorn (heavy butter),
or other indulgence.

Signature

Sherry
lowcarb.owly.net

Loco~Motion - 14 Oct 2007 05:14 GMT
> This is how we eat probably 5 days out of every 7.  Weekends we tend to
> cut loose and have a sandwich on low carb bread, bowl of popcorn (heavy
> butter), or other indulgence.

Brevity snips

Have you had you cholerstrol levels checked recently?  Have they gone up,
down or stayed the same low-carbing?
coldoll - 15 Oct 2007 09:43 GMT
> <Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Sherry
> lowcarb.owly.net

Just curious, what do you weigh?  I have been successful with a low
carb diet with lots of delicious goodies for 30 years.

Regards,Coldoll
UsenetID - 15 Oct 2007 16:30 GMT
> Just curious, what do you weigh?  I have been successful with a low
> carb diet with lots of delicious goodies for 30 years.

I started at 380, and am now 290, where I've stayed for about a year and a
half, purposely.  If I started eating carby again on a regular basis, I have
no doubt I'd be 400 or worse by now.  OTOH, if I chose to give up the weekly
fish'n'chips dinners on Friday nights that are keeping me from continuing to
lose, I'd probably be below 200 by now.  For the time being, and until I
change my mind again, I'd obviously rather have the dinners than the weight
loss and "live right" the rest of the time to stay where I am on the scale.
:)
Signature

Sherry
lowcarb.owly.net

Hollywood - 12 Oct 2007 13:05 GMT
On Oct 11, 9:27 pm, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What does a 20 carb day look like to you? Do you watch calories at all
> or do you just make yourself sick on steaks?   What if you had to stay
> there *forever*, what would you do?

Make yourself sick on steaks? I'm unclear on the concept. If I had to
eat
steaks forever, I think I could live with that.

It's in the framing. If you frame it a priori, as "sick on steaks" you
will be
there before you know it. If you frame it as, "I get to eat steak, ad
libitum,
forever, and I can put compound butter on it? Lucky me," you've
already
won.
Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 12 Oct 2007 20:08 GMT
> On Oct 11, 9:27 pm, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> already
> won.

Hm. When I said, " make yourself sick" -- I meant "overeat" or " eat
til you're stuffed".

I certainly did not mean to violate or impugn the fine, right and very
good honourable Beefysteak as the King of All Foods.

c
all bow to the mayor of cowtown
Pat - 12 Oct 2007 20:27 GMT
> c
> all bow to the mayor of cowtown

What does Mike Moncrief have to do with anything?

Pat in TX
Hollywood - 13 Oct 2007 15:45 GMT
On Oct 12, 3:08 pm, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On Oct 11, 9:27 pm, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> I certainly did not mean to violate or impugn the fine, right and very
> good honourable Beefysteak as the King of All Foods.

In Taubes, people fasting don't feel hungry.
If you give them 300-600 calories of fat and protein, they don't feel
hungry.
If you give them 800-1000 calories of fat and protein, and, yeah,
they don't feel hungry.
And so it is at 1200 cals, 1500 cals, 1800 cals, 2300 cals, and
up to ad libitum.

If you give them 1500 cals and add in a bunch of carb, they are
ravenous.

I guess the lesson is: It doesn't need to be a 42 oz porterhouse
or the king cut prime rib. It works fine with that, but it also works
fine with a few chicken thighs or beef tournedos (fillet mignon) w/
a nice matrie d'hotel butter.

I don't get "sick on steaks", but I don't watch calories either.
Build with protein first, then add some minimal carbs. Maybe.

Breakfast is a shake. breakfast snack is a shake or some
cottage cheese or some chicken wings or eggs and breakfast
meat. Lunch is leftovers or hot wings, maybe some veg. Snack 2
is nuts, if I have it. Dinner is meat and maybe some veg. And maybe
some fruit after. I'm not at a point where quantity matters much. I
let my body tell me whats enough and whats too much. I'm getting
there on it.

265/207/195 @ 6'2" M
Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 13 Oct 2007 19:18 GMT
> On Oct 12, 3:08 pm, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, what you've got there looks like 20 or under, some days. I
always wonder too how the noncalorie watchers are doing. Atkins says
don't worry about it and when I was massive I just ate.  When I got
closer to goal I couldn't do that anymore and I had count calories.

Congrats on your 50+ loss. :)

c
and peace reigned through the kingdom once more
Hollywood - 14 Oct 2007 13:50 GMT
On Oct 13, 2:18 pm, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On Oct 12, 3:08 pm, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>
> Congrats on your 50+ loss. :)

When I stall, I make adjustments. I stalled at 230, so I ate more. It
broke the stall. I'm stalled around where I am now, but this is more
a compliance issue. Am tracking for consecutive days and if I haven't
lost anything by Thanksgiving, will make adjustments, probably to
3 meals instead of 5. As I do things, this would be calorie
restriction.
But, as Dr. A might've told ya, as Adam Campbell and Jeff Volek do
tell you (Men's Health's TNT Diet) and as the Eades tell ya, at will
doesn't mean ad infinitum. I think I might've had 5000+ calorie days
as a carb addict. I'm pretty sure I haven't come close as a recovering
carb addict.

Circular bit: When I was stalled around 230 last year in Nov/Dec, I
was eating, through the miracles of protein/fat satiety, 15-1700 kcal
per day. When I started losing again, I was at 17-2100 kcal. Truly,
Taubes is correct that it's not the calories, in every instance.
Aaron Baugher - 15 Oct 2007 17:03 GMT
> Circular bit: When I was stalled around 230 last year in Nov/Dec, I
> was eating, through the miracles of protein/fat satiety, 15-1700 kcal
> per day. When I started losing again, I was at 17-2100 kcal. Truly,
> Taubes is correct that it's not the calories, in every instance.

He really blows that away, doesn't he?  I'm not finished with the book
yet, but this was one of my favorite bits on the almighty calorie:

 For the Natal Indians, working primarily in and around sugar
 plantations, Campbell considered sugar the obvious suspect for their
 diabetes.  He reported that the per-capita consumption of sugar in
 India was around twelve pounds yearly, compared with nearly eighty
 pounds for these working-class Natal Indians.  The fat content of the
 diet in Natal was also very low, which seemed to rule out fat as the
 culpable nutrient.  Excessive calorie consumption couldn't be to
 blame, according to Campbell, because some of these impoverished Natal
 Indians were living on as little as sixteen hundred calories a day --
 "a figure in many countries which would be regarded almost as a
 /starvation wage/" -- and yet they "were enormously fat and suffered
 from undoubted diabetes proven by blood tests."

It's not the calories.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Cubit - 12 Oct 2007 18:26 GMT
You seem to focus on protein.  there are some, like myself, that focus on
eating fat.

To see Atkins emphasis on fat, you need to read between the lines of DANDR.

Personally, I use Fitday to keep a constant watch on calories.  When DANDR
was written, calorie counting was still generally a manual process that most
folk would not follow.  Atkins' and other's reliance on appetite reduction
of low carb is understandable.  Any book that says to count calories is
probably going to not sell a million copies.  Computer software and a good
kitchen scale make calorie counting practical.  It does still require some
time and effort.  Unfortunately, when I tried to do maintenance without
journaling and Fitday, I got into trouble.  Thus, I expect to continue
Fitday, or something like it, for the rest of my life.

One's menu has to be individually devised due to differences in personal
taste.

Your question about eating until getting sick suggests you have not read The
Book.

Cubit
320/155/160

> What does a 20 carb day look like to you? Do you watch calories at all
> or do you just make yourself sick on steaks?   What if you had to stay
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> c
> diet recon
Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 12 Oct 2007 20:11 GMT
> You seem to focus on protein.  there are some, like myself, that focus on
> eating fat.
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Cubit:

I focus on fat, too -- well, actually it depends on what kind of shape
my endocrine system seems to be in. When I was burning high, walking
five miles a day, working out five times a week ( because my healthy
insulin was streaming enough energy to do so, it seems to me now) -- I
did a lot of protein and counted calories impeccably.

But when my insulin was sick and I was grossly overweight and even
months into my longest weight loss haul, I focused on carbs and kept
increasing fat to reset my insulin. I did not know I was doing this at
the time, I just knew it was working and I kept feeling better and
better.

I didn't have to think about calories very much until I was about 30
pounds away from goal. And then I thought about them *alot*.

c
food is my phentermine
em - 12 Oct 2007 19:03 GMT
Hey c,

I stopped counting a while back, but am at/around 20. A typical day is
something like this:

Sausage & eggs with cheese or sour cream in the morning. Sometimes a couple
sausage mcmuffin's with egg, sans the buns.

A couple of sizeable low-carb veggie dishes for lunch, mixed with canned
tuna or canned chicken, topped with mayo or sometimes blue cheese dressing.
Usually cole slaw or broccoli or carrots. Sometimes cauliflower, side salads
or whatever. I've never tried raw cauliflower. Didn't even know that I liked
it until recently :-) Otherwise, I pretty much eat all my veggies raw.

A couple ounces of cheese for a snack, sometimes a package of almonds,
sunflower seeds or mixed nuts.

Out and about, I'll usually hit the refrigerator section at the grocery
store and buy some pepperoni links, etc. Most deli meat has one or two grams
of carbs/oz so if I hit the deli, I always ask to look at the back of the
package before I buy. I'd much rather hit the grocery store than a fast food
joint.

Restaurants seem to never be a problem. If I can't substitute something I
can't eat with something I can, then I ask them to not bring the item. "I'll
have the hungry-hungry double whammy breakfast, gimme cottage cheese instead
of hash browns, a side of sausage instead of the fruit bowl and just don't
bring the pancakes."

I'm not a meal eater, really, I'm more of an all-day snacker. In the evening
I'll usually have steak, sometimes chicken. If I'm gonna cook for the kids
or for company, I'll forego my afternoon salad and steam veggies with dinner
instead.

I have some raspberries in the freezer, I have a couple now and then.

Sometimes I do get off-track and have stuff I shouldn't, and pay for it, of
course.

There's a lot of crap around my house because I have kids. Bread, PB&J,
reeses peanut butter cups, kit-kat bars, lots of fruit, etc. The threat is
not having that stuff around, the threat is having that stuff around and not
having anything else in the house that I can eat.

I seem to have hit a flat spot in my loss, due in part to having cheated a
couple times, but mostly because I think I need to exercise and shake things
up a little bit.

I'm not a big stickler for variety, but I do try to mix things up a little
bit. Different kinds of veggies, different kinds and different cuts of meat.
I've started buying more expensive cuts of meat lately just 'cause I can.
The cheap stuff doesn't seem to have enough fat, so I cook it with butter
:-))

Mike
em - 12 Oct 2007 20:08 GMT
I think I can put this a little better.

I'm not counting carbs but I do stay mindful of what I eat. I am at/around
20 carbs per day. I have several things that I choose from each day: eggs,
different kinds of low-carb veggies, cheeses, seeds, nuts and meat. On days
when I eat nuts or seeds, I'll either limit or eliminate the cheese. The
lack of variety doesn't bother me, but I do have other things from
time-to-time, such as berries or whatever little low-carb treat I find at
the store. (Not the sugar alcohol candy, though, that doesn't work for me.)
Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 12 Oct 2007 20:48 GMT
> I think I can put this a little better.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> time-to-time, such as berries or whatever little low-carb treat I find at
> the store. (Not the sugar alcohol candy, though, that doesn't work for me.)

thanks, em.  I haven't *ever* had to go as low as 20 a day after
Induction, but I'm considering what it would look like for me.

I'd eat chocomaltitol on a daily basis but to me it's like gin.
Instead of the whanging hangover you get a personal cloud of methane.

Raspberries are awesome. I've been digging cantaloupe with a touch of
lime lately.

c
I could just eat my dog...
em - 12 Oct 2007 21:12 GMT
>> I think I can put this a little better.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> thanks, em.  I haven't *ever* had to go as low as 20 a day after
> Induction, but I'm considering what it would look like for me.

Things go south for me when I hit 35, something like that, so I just keep it
low. I know that I can go overboard a bit if I want to without screwing up.
My only real screw-ups are when I eat something like a donut or whatever.
That baahahhahad for me.

> I'd eat chocomaltitol on a daily basis but to me it's like gin.
> Instead of the whanging hangover you get a personal cloud of methane.

c must stand for cool! Is that low-carb stuff? If so, I'm going to buy a
can/bottle/box or whatever and keep it around for those times when I need
it.

> Raspberries are awesome. I've been digging cantaloupe with a touch of
> lime lately.

Woa! I just looked that up. Cantaloupe is low carb!!! I didn't know that. I
love that stuff. I buy my daughter fruit bowls all the time and am afraid to
touch them. What about other mellons?

Mike

> c
> I could just eat my dog...

If ya' did that, who'd you have to blame for your chocomaltitol escapades?
LOL, I remember how much farting used to piss off my x, especially at night
when we were sleeping. I'd be asleep and she'd start shoving me and
bitching. I guess farting is one of the things I miss most from days gone
by. I certainly miss farting more than her.
Aaron Baugher - 12 Oct 2007 23:07 GMT
> Woa! I just looked that up. Cantaloupe is low carb!!! I didn't know
> that. I love that stuff. I buy my daughter fruit bowls all the time and
> am afraid to touch them. What about other mellons?

Watermelon is even better on the carb count.  As fruits go on the carb
scale, strawberries are the low-carb king, followed by blackberries and
raspberries, then watermelon, then cantaloupe and honeydew, then
peaches, then sour cherries.  Beyond those, most fruits are too carby
for me to bother with, and the low-carb ones tend to be my favorites
anyway.  I'd never eat and apple or orange when there are berries and
melon to be had.

Special mention of avocados, which are technically a fruit although most
people probably don't think of them that way.  They're quite low-carb
and high in fat and other good stuff.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Alice Faber - 12 Oct 2007 23:49 GMT
> > Woa! I just looked that up. Cantaloupe is low carb!!! I didn't know
> > that. I love that stuff. I buy my daughter fruit bowls all the time and
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> people probably don't think of them that way.  They're quite low-carb
> and high in fat and other good stuff.

You forgot the blueberries!

Signature

"[xxx] has very definite opinions, and does not suffer fools lightly.
This, apparently, upsets the fools."
    ---BB cuts to the pith of a flame-fest

Aaron Baugher - 15 Oct 2007 16:10 GMT
>> > Woa! I just looked that up. Cantaloupe is low carb!!! I didn't know
>> > that. I love that stuff. I buy my daughter fruit bowls all the time and
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> You forgot the blueberries!

That's probably because they've always seemed tasteless and
disappointing to me, so I forget they exist.  Maybe it'd be different if
I got some very fresh ones, but they aren't grown much locally here.  On
the carb count, PP's chart puts them at 8.6 net carbs per 1/2 cup, which
is in the middle somewhere between the high-sugar fruits like apples and
the low-sugar ones like the other berries, but I understand blueberries
have some other nutritional perks that may make them worth an extra carb
or two.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 13 Oct 2007 02:31 GMT
> > Woa! I just looked that up. Cantaloupe is low carb!!! I didn't know
> > that. I love that stuff. I buy my daughter fruit bowls all the time and
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> --
> Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Hey Aaron:

I get 10/9 effective per serving for watermelon, 5/4 for canteloupe.

Would you be referring to some new substance like Sugarless
Watermelon?

c
I've tried the gum. It was so-so.
Aaron Baugher - 15 Oct 2007 15:32 GMT
> I get 10/9 effective per serving for watermelon, 5/4 for canteloupe.

What's a serving?  Here are the net carbs for some berries and melons
from PP's ECC charts, per 1/2 cup in each case:

Strawberries 3.3
Raspberries  4.2
Blackberries 5.9

Watermelon   5.5
Cantaloupe   5.7
Honeydew     7.8

I was correct that watermelon is lower than cantaloupe, but they're
closer than I thought -- practically the same.  I was also surprised to
see that blackberries are slightly higher than those two melons.
However, blackberries are awfully full of nutritional goodness, and 1/2
cup of blackberries seems like a nice treat, while 1/2 cup of watermelon
seems like teasing myself, so I think I'll still go for the
blackberries.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Roger Zoul - 15 Oct 2007 17:04 GMT
> Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com writes:
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> seems like teasing myself, so I think I'll still go for the
> blackberries.

What about blueberries?  Much nutritional goodness there too.
Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 13 Oct 2007 02:37 GMT
Heya...I think all melon is about the same. Except Watermelon -- as
far as I know. And watermelon Jolly Ranchers.

c
What kind of self-respecting
Rancher makes candy?
Jackie Patti - 13 Oct 2007 05:41 GMT
>> Raspberries are awesome. I've been digging cantaloupe with a touch of
>> lime lately.
>
> Woa! I just looked that up. Cantaloupe is low carb!!! I didn't know
> that. I love that stuff. I buy my daughter fruit bowls all the time and
> am afraid to touch them. What about other mellons?

Yup, pretty much.  I do a cup of any type of melon, or a cup of any sort
of berries, or a whole kiwi.  Just not at breakfast as that screws up my
bg too much in the morning.

A cup of berries mixed in a cup of Greek yogurt is just incredibly
awesomely decadent.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Doug Freyburger - 12 Oct 2007 20:49 GMT
Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:

> What does a 20 carb day look like to you?

Cheese and eggs and coffee and other stuff that could be viewed
as zero but that is rounded down from 0.5, total of about 10 for the
day.  Half of that from the plentiful dairy a slice of American
process
cheese on the two eggs at breakfast and 3-4 ounces of cheese at
lunch.

The other ten was a soup bowl of salad before dinner, mixed leave
types some sliced cuke some diced green onion.  Plus the
mandatory 1-2 servings of low carb veggie like asparugus or
cauliflower.

> Do you watch calories at all

Not in the first week of Atkins.  But since the cravings were then
gone I watched portions from the second week on.

> or do you just make yourself sick on steaks?

I admit that going to Outback for a giant steak does happen.
Just not every month.  On the last day of Induction I did go
out for a steak and lobster feast, though.  I had steamer clams
(1 gram per oz), lobster (0.1 gram per oz), steak (the Heinz
57 must have been about 3 grams) and a big salad.  The next
day food wasn't much interesting though my undereating that
one day didn't even out the calories for the day before.

> What if you had to stay there *forever*, what would you do?

Being on Atkins I only did it for 14 days.

But when I read about longevity and how the reduced calorie
mice thrive, it looks like reduced insulin is the primary reason
they live longer with reduced thyroid as the secondary reason.
Staying at 20 long enough eventually drops T3 thyroid (probably
way stalls are so very common among folks who stay at 20).

so staying at 20, while not effective for fat loss, might actually
be good for longevity.

> Personally , I eat a lot of eggs and hamburger, but I know I only have
> to live like that for two weeks of induction. If I'm cutting carbs and
> not on Induction ( which I've only officially done five times in ten
> years) I'll eat Advantage bars, the tops of pizzas, cantaloupe, weird
> food experiments,  etc.

Tops of pizza seems quite normal for my post-Induction.
Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 12 Oct 2007 21:21 GMT
> But when I read about longevity and how the reduced calorie
> mice thrive, it looks like reduced insulin is the primary reason
> they live longer with reduced thyroid as the secondary reason.
> Staying at 20 long enough eventually drops T3 thyroid (probably
> way stalls are so very common among folks who stay at 20).

Uh huh. I've been thinking about that lately, and I've also been
thinking about why it is that people think I'm my fifteen year old
son's older sister. Aging isn't the same as it used to be now that
there's Clairol and lipo, but it's gottten to a point of curiosity
with me.

Lots of good reasons to go to 20 and stay there.  I've just never done
it before.

c

star labrat
Doug Freyburger - 12 Oct 2007 21:58 GMT
Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Lots of good reasons to go to 20 and stay there.

None of which have to do with loss after reaching some level above
ideal.  Stalls at 20 are common because of the T3 reduction.

> I've just never done it before.

My CCLL is 50.  When I did 6 months at 35 because it's easy, I
lost nothing for that 6 months and I dropped out of ketosis.  It
took a year to figure out what I'd done to myself.
Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 13 Oct 2007 02:24 GMT
> Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> lost nothing for that 6 months and I dropped out of ketosis.  It
> took a year to figure out what I'd done to myself.

So what had you done to yourself? Do you think your low T3 was causing
you to burn carbs? Liver shutdown? I don't get what happened.

c

speak slowly, I'm on ketones
em - 13 Oct 2007 03:26 GMT
>> Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> So what had you done to yourself? Do you think your low T3 was causing
> you to burn carbs? Liver shutdown? I don't get what happened.

I don't get the whole thing about T3, actually. What is that Doug? I know
you've talked about it before, but somehow it didn't sink in.

Mike
Doug Freyburger - 14 Oct 2007 23:37 GMT
Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Lots of good reasons to go to 20 and stay there.
>
> > None of which have to do with loss after reaching some level above
> > ideal ...

And I'll repeat - Lots of folks who stay at 20 stall.  Then they fail
to follow the directions of moving on to OWL.  Instead they assert
that "Atkins stopped working for me".  Just how many times have
you heard someone say that?  So often it's from the ones who
never even tried OWL.  When I tracked posters for every one who
lost well staying on Induction (only counting folks who started
with only 80- to lose because that's part of the deal as well) there
were 7 who stalled staying on Induction.  Anecdotal evidence is
not scientifically valid evidence but has anyone at all gathered
data on the topic?  Check out any study you like on sutained
Induction and see how small the losses are ...

And of course folks without even anecdotal evidence love to
complain that my anecdotal evidence isn't valid, and then they
start making assertions based on no data at all.

> > My CCLL is 50.  When I did 6 months at 35 because it's easy, I
> > lost nothing for that 6 months and I dropped out of ketosis.  It
> > took a year to figure out what I'd done to myself.
>
> So what had you done to yourself? Do you think your low T3 was causing
> you to burn carbs? Liver shutdown? I don't get what happened.

I fell out of ketonuria.  Get the 1993 edition of the book.  Look up
"reversal diet" in the index.  Start reading about a page up.  Dr A
encountered people who had done themselves metabolic damage
by staying on Induction far too long.  Treating Atkins as a fad diet
really.

The few Inuits who live the traditional hunting lifestyle on the ice
eat near zero carbs for months on end and they don't lose weight.
Cats fed meat don't lose either.  There's an evolved in metabolic
mechanism to handle it.  It's about T3 and leptin.  What I did to
myself is I put myself into that hunter/carnivore mode and as a
result I stopped losing.

Do NOT think that if low carbs is good then lower must be better.
If to were true every book out there would say it.  Folks love to
quote Dr A out of context on the topic but he means going above
CCLL and/or CCLM.

The mechanism - Leptin somehow tracks 1) amount of stored
body fat and 2) the highest carb level eaten in the last several
months.  Leptin drives T3 output among other metabolic drivers.
T3 drives resting metabolism.  Drive leptin by sustained 20, drop
to having insufficient excess body fat.  It's why the rules for
extending Induction are what they are - Maximum length of 6
months after the day you no longer have "a lot to lose".  He
never defines that one either but gather a bit of data and you'll
pick a number in the range of 80-100 left to lose.

The biological mechanisms of lose aren't obvious.  If they were,
no one would be fat.  Staying on Induction because you want
it to work better than following the directions, do you really
think there's any chance Dr A failed to try that before designing
a system that doesn't do that?
Aaron Baugher - 15 Oct 2007 16:22 GMT
> And I'll repeat - Lots of folks who stay at 20 stall.  Then they fail
> to follow the directions of moving on to OWL.  Instead they assert
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> with only 80- to lose because that's part of the deal as well) there
> were 7 who stalled staying on Induction.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if it were that reliable, it seems like
many people who do Protein Power would stall and be unable to lose
weight after a while.  PP has you keep your carbs under 30 (Stage I)
until your body fat percentage is down to 20% (20-25% for women) and
your blood sugar and lipid numbers are good.  This could take many
months for people who are very obese or have serious blood issues.  Do
all these people stall -- it seems like the Drs. Eades would have
noticed that -- or is the additional 10g/day compared to Atkins
Induction enough to prevent the leptin-induced stall you're talking
about?

Signature

Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Doug Freyburger - 15 Oct 2007 17:55 GMT
> > And I'll repeat - Lots of folks who stay at 20 stall.  Then they fail
> > to follow the directions of moving on to OWL.  Instead they assert
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > with only 80- to lose because that's part of the deal as well) there
> > were 7 who stalled staying on Induction.

I very much want a study that compares following the directions
of Atkins with extended Induction.  Validly tracked data would be
of far more value than the anecdotal data I counted.

> I'm not saying you're wrong, but if it were that reliable, it seems like
> many people who do Protein Power would stall and be unable to lose
> weight after a while.  PP has you keep your carbs under 30 (Stage I)
> until your body fat percentage is down to 20% (20-25% for women) and

It's been a long time since I read the original PP.  I thought stage
II
started after two weeks, or after 20% body fat, your choice.

> your blood sugar and lipid numbers are good.

Dr Atkins claimed that only 80% see better numbers after 6 months.
It seems to me that by the time 6 months have past if your numbers
haven't improved they aren't going to and it's time to decide based on
the relative results of those 6 months vs selecting another type of
plan.

> This could take many
> months for people who are very obese or have serious blood issues.

Serious blood issues usually mean insulin resistance on ASDLC.
Strong IR tends to mean better results from low carbing - Easy go
as well as easy come back.

> Do all these people stall -- it seems like the Drs. Eades would have
> noticed that --

Please don't read all/some/none into my statements.  For every 1
poster who lost well for longer than 6 months on extended Induction
there were 7 who stalled starting week 3 and did not see another
new low until they moved on to OWL or quit.  That doesn't count
all the folks who did not discuss the matter, nor any of the folks
who moved on the OWL on or before week 7 and so on.  It shows
that moving on to OWL tends to outperform extending Induction,
but reading the table of contents teaches that.

> or is the additional 10g/day compared to Atkins
> Induction enough to prevent the leptin-induced stall you're talking
> about?

Interesting point as it's more than 10 difference.  When I had enough
posters to count it was before fiber deduction and net carbs were
added so the counts were total not net.  Since CCLLs tend to cluster
near 50, adding more than 10 to that initial 20 should make a large
difference.  Consider that any of the studies that show reduced T3
on VLCD did so at levels 20 and below.

The way I understand the purpose of  CCLL - Point loss rates not
during a stall aren't any different from just barely in ketonuria all
the
way down to trying for zero, but the likelyhood of a stall from T3
reduction is near zero at CCLL and increases steadily as the carb
counts drop.  CCLL is about avoiding T3 drop and therefore about
avoiding that particular "starvation mode".

How many people try PP and then quit because low carb "stopped
working" for them?  And how many of the ones who quit only did so
after more than 4 weeks without a new low or lost inch, who did use
the appetite suppression to control portion sizes and so on?  I don't
know.  I do guess - A lower percentage folks who stay on PP stage
1 stall than the percentage of folks who stay on Atkins induction.
Yet more support for the falseness of - If low carb is good lower carb
must be better.

Having leptin control the process and leptin be released by stored
body fat further complicates the graph of probabilities.  Having 100+
pounds to lose means enough leptin is present to immunize against
T3 dropping.
Jackie Patti - 15 Oct 2007 21:30 GMT
> Interesting point as it's more than 10 difference.  When I had enough
> posters to count it was before fiber deduction and net carbs were
> added so the counts were total not net.  Since CCLLs tend to cluster
> near 50, adding more than 10 to that initial 20 should make a large
> difference.  Consider that any of the studies that show reduced T3
> on VLCD did so at levels 20 and below.

I've gone back to counting total carbs as it's simpler.

The net thing really got annoying as I was eating more and more veggies,
stirfries with ten ingredients and such.  It wasn't about reading a
label anymore, but looking up all the ingredients, and I started to find
the net thing too annoying.

Then there's the question of how much to subtract.  Everyone doesn't
agree to subtract all fiber.  Some amount of soluble fiber is digested,
but fiber is not broken out as to soluble and insoluble, and no one
knows exactly how much soluble fiber gets broken down.  Bernstein said
in one of his teleconferences to subtract half the fiber to get carb
counts.  That seems as random a guess as subtracting it all.

Subtraction for sugar alcohols is an even more complex question as it
depends on the specific sugar alcohol and how the individual reacts to
each one, so I felt it was just simpler to decide not to eat them than
to do all this figuring.

I can't be dealing with all this complexity; there's a limit to how much
math I am willing to do before every meal.  I have to have some sort of
carb count to dose my insulin, but I decided to hell with the net
business and I'd aim my dosing at total carbs instead.

I figured I mostly eat the same foods all the time, most of my carbs
from veggies and some from dairy, so I just switched to counting total
carbs instead and went with a higher carb count.  I used to aim at 50g
net carbs, now I aim at 70-80g total carbs - and that's pretty much the
same carb count for me with the foods I eat.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Aaron Baugher - 16 Oct 2007 16:51 GMT
> I very much want a study that compares following the directions
> of Atkins with extended Induction.  Validly tracked data would be
> of far more value than the anecdotal data I counted.

That'd be great.  I'd love to see the NIH and others spend on serious
low-carb studies just a fraction of what they've spent chasing low-fat
and low-cholesterol ideas.

>> or is the additional 10g/day compared to Atkins Induction enough to
>> prevent the leptin-induced stall you're talking about?

> Interesting point as it's more than 10 difference.  When I had enough
> posters to count it was before fiber deduction and net carbs were
> added so the counts were total not net.  Since CCLLs tend to cluster
> near 50, adding more than 10 to that initial 20 should make a large
> difference.  Consider that any of the studies that show reduced T3
> on VLCD did so at levels 20 and below.

Ok, that makes sense then.  As you say, 30 is significantly closer to 50
than 20, and if the danger zone for T3 is under 20, most PP dieters will
be higher than that.  Keeping carbs constantly under 20 for months
without deducting fiber *would* be very difficult, even for someone like
me who mostly eats meat and eggs.

I've got one of the Atkins books in my reading pile, so I'll get to it
and learn this stuff better one of these days.  Thanks for the info.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 15 Oct 2007 21:24 GMT
> I fell out of ketonuria.  Get the 1993 edition of the book.  Look up
> "reversal diet" in the index.  Start reading about a page up.  Dr A
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> myself is I put myself into that hunter/carnivore mode and as a
> result I stopped losing.

Okay, uh -- I'm not sure what ketonuria has to do with T3 and leptin.
If you're trying to say that a lower carb diet lowered the conversion
rate of T4 to T3 -- I get that.  The body is an engine that runs on
feedback loops to achieve homeostasis. I've felt it myself after a
seriously long time on lowcarb -- lethargy, depression, and the sense
that I could process only one...noun...at...a....time...preferably
easy ones, like "bed" and "cheddar".  A few extra carbs -- or in fact
sometimes an immediate half of an apple or something had immediate
results.

But I never fell out of ketosis. And by the way cats do get fat eating
meat, because I have a massive, gelatinous mass of a cat and his name
is Elvis. And I don't know if you can take Joe Cubicle in his Hyrbrid
Honda and superimpose him over Nanook of the Arctric Tundra and get
science.

But if adding 30 carbs a day incinerated the rest of your jelly roll,
good on ya.

?Staying on Induction because you want
> it to work better than following the directions, do you really
> think there's any chance Dr A failed to try that before designing
> a system that doesn't do that?

Now calm down, jefe. Very honestly: in the ten years I have been aware
of Dr. A's  books I have never found him to have said a wrong thing.
Ever. The worst he ever did was promise his audience that they could
lose weight without exercise, which was actually true, it was just
going to put Suzanne Somers out of the thigh master business and we
couldn't have that.

On the other hand the doc is not Jesus Christ and these books are not
the Holy Writ. Back in 1993 Dr A wasn't talking about leptin because
in 1993 leptin was just a spark in a researcher's eye. There could be
a lot of reasons that you stopped losing based on your carb intake --
I'm not entirely convinced all this is about how many leptin guys your
brain made six months ago.

Ketosis means you're burning fat. Not-ketosis means you're burning
something else. What would you be burning if you went out of ketosis
on 20 carbs a day? You had to burn something unless you were dead that
year.

c
Could happen. I was dead a whole semester once.
Jackie Patti - 15 Oct 2007 22:24 GMT
> But I never fell out of ketosis. And by the way cats do get fat eating
> meat, because I have a massive, gelatinous mass of a cat and his name
> is Elvis. And I don't know if you can take Joe Cubicle in his Hyrbrid
> Honda and superimpose him over Nanook of the Arctric Tundra and get
> science.

Your cat actually eats meat?  Mine will eat most of the mice they kill,
but otherwise... not so much.

I tried making homemade cat food, chicken legs cooked in broth with raw
chopped liver/kidney/heart added and a bit of brewer's yeast... but they
prefer the dry crap stuff.

The first ingredient on the dry stuff is corn, not meat.  I figure it's
the equivalent of "junk food" for cats as they like it better than what
ought to be healthier stuff.  Sort of... Purina is to cats as General
Mills is to my husband.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 16 Oct 2007 03:50 GMT
> Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > But I never fell out of ketosis. And by the way cats do get fat eating
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> --http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

:). Eh, to tell you the truth I don't pay that much attention to what
Elvis eats. First of all I think I'd be completely horrified if I knew
the whole story and second, we're not friends. He's a scheming little
gremlin of an animal with anger management problems and I think he
drinks. My cat is a social disease. The only reason I let him hang
around is because he's never awake long enough for me to finish
telling him to leave.

If I made chicken feet for him or whatever it would be because it was
his last meal before he got the Chair.

c

Kentucky Fried...never mind....
Hollywood - 16 Oct 2007 13:31 GMT
On Oct 15, 10:50 pm, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > But I never fell out of ketosis. And by the way cats do get fat eating
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> If I made chicken feet for him or whatever it would be because it was
> his last meal before he got the Chair.

Most commercial cat food is something like 10-20% protein, and 5-15%
fat, with another 3-5% fiber. I was only okay at math, but that feels
very
unlike any meat eaten by anyone who eats actual meat. It also feels
very unlike mice (85% protein) and other things a cat might eat in the
wild.

Kitten food is a little better, with protein+fat+fiber up to 50%.

Trying to find a low carb cat food at petsmart was like trying to eat
low carb
while shoveling tortilla chips at a mexican restaurant.

Innova EVO is what my cats eat. It's not mice, but frankly, I don't
want
mice around the house.
Jackie Patti - 16 Oct 2007 15:12 GMT
> Trying to find a low carb cat food at petsmart was like trying to eat
> low carb
> while shoveling tortilla chips at a mexican restaurant.
>
> Innova EVO is what my cats eat. It's not mice, but frankly, I don't
> want mice around the house.

They have free access to the outdoors and we live on a farm.  I'm OK
with them being murderous serial killers, I just want the corpses left
outside.

But... there's four cats and me, so I'm outvoted on the mouse issue.  I
clean up a few leftovers nearly every day.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Aaron Baugher - 16 Oct 2007 17:04 GMT
> Your cat actually eats meat?  Mine will eat most of the mice they
> kill, but otherwise... not so much.
>
> I tried making homemade cat food, chicken legs cooked in broth with
> raw chopped liver/kidney/heart added and a bit of brewer's
> yeast... but they prefer the dry crap stuff.

My fiance is going through that now.  Her cat is a big fat spoiled eater
that doesn't even like canned tuna, although he'll lick away the juice.
Now that she's been learning about the effects of carbs, she wants to
get him on more of a meat diet, but he turns his nose up at turkey or
chicken.  She sent for some ground rabbit, to see if he'll eat that,
since she's seen him catch and eat rabbits.  I foresee a test of wills.

My dog will gladly eat any meat, raw or cooked or rotting, so she gets a
lot of scraps and bones, but she still eats a little of the dry junk.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Hollywood - 17 Oct 2007 14:21 GMT
> > Your cat actually eats meat?  Mine will eat most of the mice they
> > kill, but otherwise... not so much.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> chicken.  She sent for some ground rabbit, to see if he'll eat that,
> since she's seen him catch and eat rabbits.  I foresee a test of wills.

I have no skin in the Innova EVO game, but DW's cat (obese, cranky,
and
picky) kicked the Purina habit and went to EVO pretty smoothly. Kitten
loves it from the word go, but she hasn't met the protein she doesn't
like.
She gets a tsp-tbsp of my vanilla protein shake on the weekends.

Cats, being creatures of habits, are not gonna take a radically new
food
easily. Probably better to blend a little in with their current food,
adjust
percentages, and eventually phase out the offending food. That's how
Ellie kicked Purina. This is a cat that will eat nothing but Purina, a
very
specific set of treats, very little turkey, and all plastic, string
and ribbon
products.
Tom - 31 Oct 2007 02:20 GMT
My cats love a little freshly grilled chicken or some catfish on
occasion, and they have wet food once a every couple of days, but they
need their dry food!
Hollywood - 31 Oct 2007 14:25 GMT
> My cats love a little freshly grilled chicken or some catfish on
> occasion, and they have wet food once a every couple of days, but they
> need their dry food!

The Innova Evo that my cats eat is dry food. And low carb. Like their
natural diet.
Doug Freyburger - 16 Oct 2007 05:08 GMT
Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Okay, uh -- I'm not sure what ketonuria has to do with T3 and leptin.

Yet you report that link in your next sentence.

> If you're trying to say that a lower carb diet lowered the conversion
> rate of T4 to T3 -- I get that.

That's the deal with T3.  The studies that show reduced T3 output
do not show reduced T4.  Thus it's a mechanism to decrease
resting metabolism.  AKA "starvation mode".  And importantly it
is no sign of thyroid damage or hypothroid if measured carefully.

> The body is an engine that runs on
> feedback loops to achieve homeostasis.

This means it makes long term adjustments to the status quo and
reacts to resist losing stored fat.

> I've felt it myself after a
> seriously long time on lowcarb -- lethargy, depression, and the sense
> that I could process only one...noun...at...a....time...preferably
> easy ones, like "bed" and "cheddar".  A few extra carbs -- or in fact
> sometimes an immediate half of an apple or something had immediate
> results.

Right.  Lethagy from staying too low in carbs.  The 1993 edition
suggested a two week "reversal diet" of high carb low fat near
vegitarian but I think that was an over reaction based on not
knowing the underlying mechanism.  Look up a leptin reset and
it can be done in a weekend.  Some extra carbs on the spot
should work fine on a small scale.  Yet more argument that "if
low carb is good, lower must be better" is false.

> But I never fell out of ketosis. And by the way cats do get fat eating
> meat, because I have a massive, gelatinous mass of a cat and his name
> is Elvis.

So your cat Elvis never gets dried or canned catfood but only
meat fresh or canned?

> And I don't know if you can take Joe Cubicle in his Hyrbrid
> Honda and superimpose him over Nanook of the Arctric Tundra and get
> science.

Science is both statistics of results and projections from causal
principles.

> But if adding 30 carbs a day incinerated the rest of your jelly roll,
> good on ya.

Chortle.  Thanks.  I managed to keep it all off 2 years and I kept
struggling with maintenance for years.  I'm in the process of starting
again lately.

> Now calm down, jefe. Very honestly: in the ten years I have been aware
> of Dr. A's  books I have never found him to have said a wrong thing.

Seriously?  I've found plenty of mistakes in his books.  Mention of
"zero" in his 1972 edition that gave low carb a bad name for decades.
Mention of "purple" in the 1993 addition that has had folks fussing
over the sticks trying to turn them dark.  His confusion of the word
"loss" with the word "ketosis" as if they meant the same thing,.  The
list goes on.

> On the other hand the doc is not Jesus Christ and these books are not
> the Holy Writ.

On the other hand, find each confusing point and track who decides
which interpretation to follow and what happens to them in the
following months.  "Zero"?  Stalls galore on one side, not fussing
about accurate counts on the other side.  "Purple"?  Struggles to
turn the sticks dark on one side, treating any color change as
positive on the other.  "Loss"?  Frustration with the scale on one
side, use of ketosis on the other.

So he made mistakes, is confusing, but nonetheless designed a
process that works better than any of the others.

> Back in 1993 Dr A wasn't talking about leptin because
> in 1993 leptin was just a spark in a researcher's eye.

For that matter he didn't even know about glucagon at the time.
That's about when it was discovered.  He had postulated a "fat
mobilizing substance" but doesn't appear to have ever mentioned
glucagon.  Yet somehow he designed a process that uses it
without his knowing it exists.

> There could be
> a lot of reasons that you stopped losing based on your carb intake --
> I'm not entirely convinced all this is about how many leptin guys your
> brain made six months ago.

I've had worse nay-sayers.

> Ketosis means you're burning fat. Not-ketosis means you're burning
> something else. What would you be burning if you went out of ketosis
> on 20 carbs a day? You had to burn something unless you were dead that
> year.

I try to use the word ketonuria for this reason.  Be in ketosis but
not
ketonuria, metabolic advantage drops to zero, stall enues unless the
appetite suppression of ketosis is used to further reduce calories.
Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com - 16 Oct 2007 06:47 GMT
> Right.  Lethagy from staying too low in carbs.  The 1993 edition
> suggested a two week "reversal diet" of high carb low fat near
> vegitarian but I think that was an over reaction based on not
> knowing the underlying mechanism.  Look up a leptin reset and
> it can be done in a weekend.

Yeah, I've done it. But it was called something else...what hell was
it? CKG? Carb cycling. I did that at the bottom of my goal weight
because I was working out hard and I would get wiped out and stupid
once a week or so. Weirdly, an additional 100 carbs back then started
pushing my weight under any of God's intentions for me and entirely
removed the blessings bestowed in my bra.

That was interesting.

But still, I don't know if I want to play leptin with you. There is
the issue of leptin concentration vs. sensitivity and to tell you the
truth it took me the whole period between DADR and DANDR to get the
last sensitivity thing down.

> I try to use the word ketonuria for this reason.  Be in ketosis but
> not
> ketonuria, metabolic advantage drops to zero, stall enues unless the
> appetite suppression of ketosis is used to further reduce calories.

Yeah, okay. Same protocols applied though even before leptin became
the Tooth Fairy.

c
Don't say anything to the peptides. They're so *sensitive*.
Doug Freyburger - 17 Oct 2007 02:11 GMT
Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Right.  Lethagy from staying too low in carbs.  The 1993 edition
> > suggested a two week "reversal diet" of high carb low fat near
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Yeah, I've done it. But it was called something else...what hell was
> it? CKG? Carb cycling.

Various names that include cycling in their acronym.

Here's the conceptual framework:

Cycling is a method of overdoing low carb then overreacting by
overdoing low fat to reverse any problems created by overdoing
the low carb.  For anyone who gets carb cravings during
induction it's a lot more work than the milder CCLL concept.
It is also an extreme method that appeals to folks who want to
take radical action independent of any actual need for radical
action.  One interesting feature of cycling is it can drive body
fat percentages lower than any guideline in any dieting book
to the levels used by body builders.  Whether that's healthy is
open for debate.

Using CCLL is a method that removes the need for any cycling
by avoiding any wild swings in the lesser known hormones.  For
anyone who gets carb cravings during induction they only need
to go through those cravings twice (once during induction to
start the Atkins process, once during premaintenance to find
their CCLM).  It is the middile ground between the extremes so
it appeals to folks who don't desire unneeded extremist actions.
One interesting feature of CCLL is everyone's is different so no
one-size-fits-all menu can work to determine it.

> I did that at the bottom of my goal weight
> because I was working out hard and I would get wiped out and stupid
> once a week or so.

The directions for Induction say to take it easy on exercise.
That means the intense exercise is for the higher carb levels
of OWL.  Just another entry in the extremely long list of reasons
why lower isn't better.

> Weirdly, an additional 100 carbs back then started
> pushing my weight under any of God's intentions for me and entirely
> removed the blessings bestowed in my bra.

Wierdly only to those who don't get the mechanisms of low
carb.  You boosted your carb level, reset your ouput of leptin
and/or T3, booasted your resting metabolism, resumed loss.
Classic stall buster method that runs the opposite of what is
obvious.  And just another example of why lower isn't better.
And rather like doing a cycle.

> That was interesting.

And completely predictable.

> But still, I don't know if I want to play leptin with you. There is
> the issue of leptin concentration vs. sensitivity

There's a discussion about the new book on how science tends
to be narrowly focused.  Any one study will only target one
specific hormone or measure one specific effect.  Science is
both reductionist and integrative with the vast majority of
studies being on the reductionist side.  It's necessary to have
plenty of reductionist data to be able to pull off integrative work.

My model of how low carbing works is integrative.

> and to tell you the
> truth it took me the whole period between DADR and DANDR to get the
> last sensitivity thing down.

Food intolerances and the addictive behavior they tend to trigger
is half of the conceptual framework of Atkins IMO.  Carbs as a
tool to trigger ketonuria to trigger loss without hunger, an system
of eliminate and challenge to identify trigger foods to know what
needs to be avoided.

> Same protocols applied though even before leptin became

My take on it - Dr A could not have known the mechanism of how
his process worked.  By the 1990s he was completely clear he was
no scientist so I don't think he kept up well enough to figure out
how the various levels of hormones worked.  But it is not necessary
in science or engineering to know the underlying mechanism.
Design a system that can be tested, test it, get results, that's the
course of the pragmatic side of science.  He designed the process
in the 1970s long before either glucagon or leptin were discovered
so clearly he used the ad hoc method.

That's why I have worked since 1999 to build an integrative
hypothesis for how low carbing works - Dr A's design works ad
hoc better than anything obvious and there are anti-obvious parts
of it like lower not being better and being just barely in ketosis not
triggering as many stalls as staying lower.  It is clear he could not
possibly have known the mechanism in the 1970s when he did the
original design work (1960s and 1970s with publication in 1972).
Since I tried his method and it worked including the non-obvious
parts I've worked since 1999 on the integrative part to discover the
mechanisms.
em - 30 Oct 2007 07:12 GMT
Doug, this post is a real keeper. Thanks! -- Mike

> Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> think there's any chance Dr A failed to try that before designing
> a system that doesn't do that?
Aaron Baugher - 12 Oct 2007 22:41 GMT
> What does a 20 carb day look like to you? Do you watch calories at all
> or do you just make yourself sick on steaks?   What if you had to stay
> there *forever*, what would you do?

I doubt I'd want to eat steaks every day, but I'm pretty easy to please.
I've had eggs with bacon or sausage every morning for as long as I can
remember, and I haven't gotten tired of them yet.  Usually fried in
lard, sometimes omelettes when I'm feeling ambitious and have leftovers
to put in them.

For lunch yesterday, I made Cheeseburger In A Bowl: brown some
hamburger, put it in a bowl, mix in some cheese and whatever condiments
you'd put on a cheeseburger -- in this case just mayo and mustard, but
sometimes I'll add onions, diced jalapenos, whatever sounds good.

Supper last night was a ham steak sauted in a bit of butter long enough
to heat it, with sides of Swiss Chard.  I separated the leaves and stems
and boiled them.  Then I stirred butter and a little salt into the
boiled leaves, and made a white sauce for the stems with cream, water,
cheddar cheese, and guar gum to thicken it a bit.  (I overdid the guar
gum and it had a slimy feel I didn't like.  I'm still getting the hang
of that stuff.)

So that was a pretty typical day:  My usual breakfast, one very simple
throw-it-together meal, and one more complicated meal.  Trade the Swiss
Chard for broccoli, salad, asparagus, etc; and the meat for other meats,
and you can get a lot of variety.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

coldoll - 15 Oct 2007 09:41 GMT
On Oct 12, 11:27 am, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What does a 20 carb day look like to you? Do you watch calories at all
> or do you just make yourself sick on steaks?   What if you had to stay
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> c
> diet recon

I lost 46 kgs (look up the conversion) 25 years ago and have kept if
off, even after having 3 kids.  I managed to get to 86 kg, I'm 5ft
6in, and now weight around 48 kg.  Not difficult after a tricky start.
Coldoll
Tom G. - 15 Oct 2007 15:05 GMT
> On Oct 12, 11:27 am, Plan.Ya...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> What does a 20 carb day look like to you? Do you watch calories at all
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> 6in, and now weight around 48 kg.  Not difficult after a tricky start.
> Coldoll

 That is a sizable amount to have lost and kept off. 25 years is quite an
accomplishment. Have you been on low carb the whole time?
 
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



©2009 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.