 |
 | 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 / November 2007Eric Blackway: Weight-Loss Program
Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb. I'm 6'2", 33 years old, and this evening when I stepped on my brand- new scale, I weighed 283 pounds, possibly my all-time high weight. I have been overweight since the second grade and have been going up and down in weight since I was 17. When I say "up and down in weight," I mean from 280 to 180, the lower number being close to where I want to be. Something has to change. Slowly, over the years, I have come upon ways of doing this that work, and ways that don't. Three of the ways that work are low-carb dieting, writing, and reading, so here I am. Reading what others write about this topic will be a fresh experience. Sharing what I write about weight, food, and losing one while cutting back on the other is a frightening idea, but I'm determined to go through with it. In public, I come off as a perfectly reasonable individual with exceptionally polished social skills. I'm one of those types who live a double life, and my weight problem has always been a part of my private life, in which I am a lunatic. There are reasons for this duality, but hey, different strokes, as they say. With this in mind, I feel obliged to warn regular readers of this group that I'm not holding myself to even an NC-17 rating in this thread. I've never flamed anyone without provocation and I don't intend to start now, but I'm not just talking about language. The story of my weight problem is the story of my life, and it's been strange. Bits and pieces of it have been well beyond the brink of garden-variety insanity. I'm going to do my best to be true to that. So wish me luck, or not. Read, ignore, contribute, or not. Life is too short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to do something real about it. > Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb. > > I'm 6'2", 33 years old, and this evening when I stepped on my brand- > new scale, I weighed 283 pounds, possibly my all-time high weight. Hi Eric, Your weight story is pretty much the same as mine. I'm one of the least knowledgable here, and I just proved it because I can't even spell knowledgeable! Welcome on-board. Stick to your guns & you'll do just fine. Mike > Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to > do something real about it. Welcome Eric:) You could not have come to a better place! I wish you all the luck in the world O [ Do you think that you could be classified as an "emotional eater", where you eat in response to emotions ? ] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071108113252.htm ======================================================= Emotional Eaters Susceptible To Weight Regain ScienceDaily (Nov. 9, 2007) — Just in time for the start of the holiday eating season - a new study finds that dieters who have the tendency to eat in response to external factors, such as at festive celebrations, have fewer problems with their weight loss than those who *eat* in *response* to *emotions* (internal factors). Led by researchers at The Miriam Hospital's Weight Control & Diabetes Research Center, the study also found that *emotional_eating* was associated with weight regain in successful losers. "We found that the more people report eating in response to thoughts and feelings, such as, 'when I feel lonely, I console myself by eating,' the less weight they lost in a behavioral weight loss program. In addition, amongst successful weight losers, those who report emotional eating are more likely to regain," says lead author Heather Niemeier, Ph.D., of The Miriam Hospital's Weight Control & Diabetes Research Center and The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. This is important, the authors note, because one of greatest challenges facing the field of obesity treatment remains the problem of weight regain following weight loss. "Participants in behavioral weight loss programs lose an average of 10 percent of their body weight and these losses are associated with significant health benefits. Unfortunately, the majority of participants return to their baseline weight within three to five years," Niemeier says. In this study, researchers analyzed individual's responses to a questionnaire widely used in obesity research called the Eating Inventory. The Eating Inventory is a clinical tool that is designed to assess three aspects of eating behavior in individuals -- cognitive restraint, hunger, and disinhibition. Specifically, Niemeier and her team focused on the disinhibition component of the Eating Inventory because although past studies have suggested that disinhibition as a whole is an accurate predictor of weight loss, the scale itself includes multiple factors that could independently forecast outcomes. "The disinhibition scale evaluates impulsive eating in response to emotional, cognitive, or social cues. Our goal was to examine and isolate the factors that make up the disinhibition scale, and then determine if these factors have a specific relationship to weight loss and regain," says Niemeier. Participants in the study included two groups of individuals. The first group consisted of 286 overweight men and women who were currently participating in a behavioral weight loss program. The second group included 3,345 members of the National Weight Control Registry (NWCR), an ongoing study of adults who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for at least one year. "By examining these two very different sample groups, we were able to assess the effect of disinhibition on individuals attempting to lose weight, as well as on those who are trying to maintain weight loss," the authors note. Upon examination, the researchers found that the components within the disinhibition scale could be grouped into two distinct factors -- external and internal disinhibition. External disinhibition describes experiences that are external to the individual such as, "When I am with someone who is overeating, I usually overeat, too" and "I usually eat too much at social occasions, like parties and picnics". Internal disinhibition refers to eating in response to thoughts and feelings that are internal to the individual and includes emotional eating such as, "When I feel lonely, I console myself by eating" and "While on a diet, if I eat a food that is not allowed, I often splurge and eat other high calorie foods". Results showed that in both groups of participants, internal disinhibition was a significant predictor of weight over time. For participants in the weight loss program, the higher the level of internal disinhibition, the less weight an individual lost over time. The same was true for maintainers in the NWCR in that internal disinhibition predicted weight regain over the first year of registry membership. "Interestingly, external disinhibition did not predict weight loss or regain in either sample at any time," notes Niemeier. In addition, the authors note that internal disinhibition predicted weight change over time above and beyond other psychological issues including depression, binge eating, and perceived stress. "Our results suggest that we need to pay more attention to eating triggered by emotions or thoughts as they clearly play a significant role in weight loss. Current treatments provide minimal assistance with eating in response to feelings or thoughts," says Niemeier. She adds, "Modifying our treatments to address these triggers for unhealthy eating and help patients learn alternative strategies could improve their ability to maintain weight loss behaviors, even in the face of affective and cognitive difficulties."' The study is published in the October 2007 issue of Obesity. In addition to Niemeier, the research team consisted of Suzanne Phelan, Ph.D.; Joseph L. Fava, Ph.D.; and Rena R.Wing, Ph.D.; of the Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center at The Miriam Hospital and The Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University. This research was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Adapted from materials provided by Lifespan. > Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to > do something real about it. > [ Do you think that you could be classified as an "emotional eater", > where you eat in response to emotions ? ] Hell yeah. I could also be classified as a compulsive eater, a carbohydrate addict, and in general, a screwed-up piece of damaged goods. > Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to > do something real about it. I know what it is like to live in that double life. Having a weight problem makes you either a slob or the funny guy in the group. I find that being around people and listening to these guys and gals that weigh possible 110 pounds but call themselves fat just damn irritating. They laugh at me and just call me fluffy or pleasantly plump. What do they know?!? If they truely were fat they wouldn't know how to handle it. I wish the best of luck to you and look forward to seeing your posts. asiegel On Nov 10, 10:42 am, asieg...@gmail.com wrote: >> I know what it is like to live in that double life. Having a weight > problem makes you either a slob or the funny guy in the group. I find [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > know how to handle it. I wish the best of luck to you and look > forward to seeing your posts. Thank you so much. > Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to > do something real about it. Go for it. Just remember that consistency and tenacity is the key. Don't fall for your friends saying "just one time won't hurt"... > Go for it. Just remember that consistency and tenacity is the key. > Don't fall for your friends saying "just one time won't hurt"...- Hide quoted text - Thank you, and that sounds so familiar. THE FIRST DAY November 10, 12:38 pm Well, I wrote my first post yesterday, so I'd better pony up today with the particulars of my diet. First of all, morning weight-in. I was at 279.0, 38.0% fat and 45.5% water. The scale gave me two pluses, which means that I am OBESE. Something must be done, or I feel there's a very real chance that the next step will be bariatric surgery. I would like to avoid that, if I could. I intend to eat eight ounces of cheese every day, along with a multi- vitamin and 23 grams of additional protein from a wonderfully cheap source of whey protein powder that I found at my local supermarket. Eight ounces of cheese will give me 64 grams of protein every day. In the first week, at least, I'm going to mix the powder with a cup of whole milk, which will add 6 more grams of protein but 12 more grams of carbohydrates. I'm also going to suck down some psyllium husk laxative, to the tune of one full tablespoon, which adds 12 grams of carbohydrates. The cheese will give me 8 more grams of carbohydrates for a grand total, in my first week, of: 12 (laxative) + 12 (milk) + 8 (cheese) + 2 (protein powder) = 34 grams of carbyhydrates While protein will be at: 0 (laxative) + 8 (milk) + 64 (cheese) + 23(powder) = 95 grams of protein I'll swill all the Kool-Aid I can handle, sweetened with Splenda, which means less than 1 gram of carbohydrates per half-gallon. Yes, this diet composition is essentially a low-carbohydrate, protein- sparing fast. I'm worried about potassium amounts and am going out today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else see anything else that could kill me? > THE FIRST DAY > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else > see anything else that could kill me? Sounds kind of off-the-wall to me. Protein sparing is usually done under a doctor's supervision. I'm just guessing here, but I don't think a doctor put you on a cheese, kool-aid and laxative diet. Two things: first, I'm rooting for you. Second, if you haven't already, read a decent low-carb book like Protein Power or Atkins. It looks to me like you're going way out on a limb with a weird diet that you probably can't maintain. If you're serious about this, and I think you are, take a few days and come up with a reasonable plan that you can follow and go from there. Here are some links you may find of interest: Stillman's http://www.lowcarb.org/stillman.html Atkin's Induction http://www.atkins.com/articles/atkins-phases/phase-one/acceptable-foods/ protein sparing: http://www.drblythe.com/weightloss/chptr6txt.htm Just my .015 Mike > Sounds kind of off-the-wall to me. Protein sparing is usually done under a > doctor's supervision. I'm just guessing here, but I don't think a doctor put [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - This is the beauty of a newsgroup, isn't it? I've read Atkins cover-to-cover at least fifteen times. I've looked up Atkins's quoted research in Lancet and the BMJ, and he's telling the truth. And I have never, never managed to lose weight slowly and patiently on some nice-n-easy "take it off in 7982 weeks, lose a pound every fifteen weeks, we go slow" diet. I sincerely doubt I can: there's something about that whole mentality that screams "masochist." Nope: the only way that has ever worked for me to actually lose weight is to dive in and fight the food demon head-on. Well-meaning attempts to regulate weight loss at half-speed and three-quarters speed seem to require the same amount of willpower for me as the off-the-wall diet I am describing. A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me, insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however. Now, maybe that is my problem. Maybe I need to learn how to accept a less-enthusiastic approach to dieting. Maybe I need something entirely new, a balanced weight-loss program that leads me by the hand down the road to weight loss bit-by-bit, come on, honey, you can do it, rah, rah, rah... Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of sh.t, fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits. This is the beauty of a newsgroup, isn't it? > Nope: the only way that has ever worked for me to actually lose weight > is to dive in and fight the food demon head-on. Well-meaning attempts [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me, > insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however. OK, that's worked in the past to take the weight off. But if you're having to do it again, maybe what you need is not so much to learn how to take the weight off as how to KEEP it off. Your current plan doesn't seem to address that issue at all. Skip the kasier buns until you're lean, eat them again until you're fat, etc. That's the yo-yo thing, and all studies show that's less healthy than just staying fat in the first place - you'd be better off not dieting at all. > Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of > sh.t, fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits. The advantage to losing it slow is you learn how to eat for the rest of your life. But hey, go fast if you want to - it's your body.  Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me, > insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however. <Snipped to the Core of the Matter> I'm not gonna comment on the cheese, Kool-Aid, and laxative diet. It's probably not sustainable, was clearly not designed to be so, and will therefore, not work in the long term. The thing that I'm going to talk to is more about the mentality. Since you are here, are NC-17/X rated in your posting, and getting the ++ on your scale, I am going to suggest that you probably don't have much of an idea of what works for you. Yes, this pound a day, every day, approach has moved the scale for you in the past, but equally clearly, it has also moved the scale back up, and probably with interest, once you moved on from it. Clearly, that's not what you really want, otherwise, you'd just do it, and not be on usenet. There's the beauty of usenet. IFF: you are serious about making real changes and ending your double life (whatever: Billy Joel is right about the Stranger, all lyrics, all situations), you are going to have to find something sustainable. That is, by necessity, going to be slower. Probably 1/7th of the speed of a pound a day, every day. Maybe slower. But that's the price you pay for the worthwhile changes. On the upside, it's probably gonna be easier than doing flaxseed, kool-aid (I cannot think of many things more useless to consume) and cheese (I love cheese, but 8 oz a day would make the flax something like a necessity, and lots of people stall on cheese anyway). At any rate, I wish you the best. I'm sorry this may be harsh. But what you're doing to yourself, both food wise and mentality wise is probably not the most useful course for you. "Eric" <Eric.Blackway@gmail.com> wrote in message > > A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me, > insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however. Apparently, this has NOT worked for you. > Now, maybe that is my problem. Maybe I need to learn how to accept a > less-enthusiastic approach to dieting. Maybe I need something entirely > new, a balanced weight-loss program that leads me by the hand down the > road to weight loss bit-by-bit, come on, honey, you can do it, rah, > rah, rah... If you do the same thing you've always done, you'll get the same thing you always got. > Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of > sh.t, fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits. Well, your way doesn't seem to be working for you, Eric. > > A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me, > > insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however. > > Apparently, this has NOT worked for you. Of course it hasn't. Aiming for the physically impossible never does work. Stored fat is 3500-4000 calories per pound. Human metabolism is typically closer to half that, so losing a pound a day means you need to excerise so fiercely you more than double your caloric output for the day and somehow avoid starvation mode. Who runs daily marathons to be able to lose fat that fast? > > Now, maybe that is my problem. Maybe I need to learn how to accept a > > less-enthusiastic approach to dieting. Maybe I need something entirely [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you do the same thing you've always done, you'll get the same thing you > always got. The all-or-nothing approach yields nothing well in excess of 90% of the time. > > Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of > > sh.t, fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits. > > Well, your way doesn't seem to be working for you, Eric. Guaranteed regain. Doing radical stuff is SO tempting, but it never keeps the weight off. >THE FIRST DAY > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else >see anything else that could kill me? First -- welcome to the group. Second -- what plan is it that you're following? Why don't you just eat real food? SignatureBlueBrooke 254/225/135 > First -- welcome to the group. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > BlueBrooke Thank you for your welcome. In answer to your question, because real food doesn't work for me, and it never has. I like real food, and I tend to eat more of it than is good for me. But Jesus Christ, who can afford "real food" that would taste acceptable on a low-carb diet? Once you get into making low-carb sauces and pounding down low-carb meals from the animal kingdom...holy damn, the price tag mounts up! We're talking at least six dollars a day if you try to eat 2000 calories in meat and fish with some level of variety. That adds up to some serious bread, doesn't it? Speaking of bread, once I get into "real food" and not food that convinces me I'm on a diet when I'm on a diet, the separation in my head between "I'm eating real food" and "I'm on a diet" quickly gets blurry, especially in the first stages of a low-carb diet. Somehow, when I'm consuming a cheesy medium-rare half-pound patty on a plate, it reminds me that I'm missing a decent kaiser roll. Putting it on some ultra-special preservative-reeking soya cracker- wannabe ain't gonna cut it at that point. (That might fall under someone's else's definition of "real food," but not mine.) Being on an easy diet, for me, is kind of like being on an easy plan to quit smoking. I've done it three times, and it does get easier each time, but the second I start trying to make the experience anything less than a clear separation between me and the puffies, everything goes to hell. And judging from the fact that going by the accepted wisdom provided by dieting gurus means that 95% of people who lose weight on diets simply regain it again in five years, I think that there might be some logic to what I say. As far as I know, there is very little research that actually targets "what losing it fast" and "losing it slow" means. If you look at studies, an element of exercise is always involved, as well as an element of behavioral modification. My conclusion based on the suspicious regularity of these recurring elements in the advice that we all tend to suck up like mother's milk is that there is really very little difference in the failure rates of those who lose it fast and those who lose it slow, as long as carefully planned elements of both behavioral modification and exercise exists. To prove that, of course, we would have to have access to raw data, and that data is firmly in the control of the powers that be, the ones that have all the money and the power, and preach to all of us about how to live life on their terms. Based on these observations, I think it's far more likely that the reason why losing weight is so frowned upon by nutritionists is that you very simply can't tell people of all ages and backgrounds that they should lose weight fast. Some older individual is going to kill himself, and it's very easy for even one good lawsuit to establish liability and wipe out the profitability of any diet plan. In general, the same holds true for all marketed exercise programs, and even things like the US Navy's delayed entrance program. To be frank, a forty-year-old could probably follow the preparation plan our salty dogs lay out in their DEP manual to get ready for boot camp. Since the military doesn't recruit anyone above 28, well, you can see the absurd logic behind detailing a TEN WEEK program that takes an average 20-something from walking 40 minutes a day 4 times a week to running 30 minutes three times a week. The idiot-fix is in. The Navy's primary goal in telling you to go as slowly as that is to AVOID GETTING SUED, not to actually help you. Atkins proved to my satisfaction long ago that the American Medical Association is most definitely in the pocket of well-organized multinational agribusiness, so I have a lot of suspicion when it comes to following any kind of accepted wisdom in dieting. If it's been documented, if it's been proven and confirmed, I'll try it, but start taking steps away from that, and the next thing you know, you're playing games with yourself that you can live with just a few cigarettes (oops, I mean dietary slip-ups) a week, and then you're back where you started. But Atkins is in the same boat as the rest of them. One poor bastard dies and their spouse runs to a well-funded and well-connected personal injury lawyer, and poor Dr. Atkins is B-R-O-K-E. So I'm trying to eat about a thousand calories a day, with a less than 20% caloric intake from carbohydrates. I'm a bit worried about vitamins, but as to keeping this going for something like three months and dropping ninety pounds...now that's a challenge worth fighting for. This is, with the simple addition of more protein, the Benoit- study dietary ketosis diet detailed in Atkins. A peer-evaluated, proven plan under the unflinching terms of the scientific method, as Atkins goes on to show and I have scoured old medical journals to confirm. Now the issue of losing weight, when it comes to me, seems to be food addiction before any other. Not genes, nor willpower, but addiction. And the addict, caught in the throes of addiction, does not make positive choices on a day-to-day basis, which is more or less the only reason why he is typically called an "addict" and not a "role model." The addict's brain does not function solely according to the dictates of logic and reason, just like everyone else's, but in an overt way that leads to a lack of socioeconomic success and personal fulfillment, as defined by our society. I have seen this pattern of behavior over and over in myself, and I'd be willing to bet anyone reading a low-carb newsgroup has as well. When it comes to addiction, be it physical or psychological, there comes a point where you simply HAVE TO STOP. The commitment you make to stop is not about logic. It is about a furious "NO!" thrown out into the everlasting, uncaring ether that exists despite you and your puny self, a determination to not give in and do what is easy but choose instead what is right. And that, in its turn, could be said to be the essence of faith, commitment, or even love. And that, for me, leads to the inescapable conclusion that I really have to stop enjoying food, enjoying eating all I want, and relentlessly rearrange up some of the wiring in my head to make things lead to different places. I have tried other times in the past, and half-finished the job, but the food demon has returned to climb once again on my back and sink his relentless claws into my shoulders. I am quite certain that the food demon will kill me, unless I finally manage to throw him off and wrestle him into eternal submission. Once again, thank you for your welcome. > But Jesus Christ, who can afford "real food" that would taste > acceptable on a low-carb diet? Once you get into making low-carb > sauces and pounding down low-carb meals from the animal kingdom...holy > damn, the price tag mounts up! We're talking at least six dollars a > day if you try to eat 2000 calories in meat and fish with some level > of variety. That adds up to some serious bread, doesn't it? You can get lots more variety in at a lower price tag if you use eggs as a major source of protein. You can cook eggs a bazillion different ways. Also, you add a LOT of variety with veggies too. There's a lot more choices in nonstarchy vegetables than there are in meats. > Speaking of bread, once I get into "real food" and not food that > convinces me I'm on a diet when I'm on a diet, the separation in my > head between "I'm eating real food" and "I'm on a diet" quickly gets > blurry, especially in the first stages of a low-carb diet. Somehow, > when I'm consuming a cheesy medium-rare half-pound patty on a plate, > it reminds me that I'm missing a decent kaiser roll. At the beginning, that makes sense. When I do induction, I eat pretty much nothing but meat and eggs to get me over the hump. But if you're going to low-carb for life, you need to think in terms of real, every-day food you can live with long term. Kaiser rolls never come back into it for me; the burger is *permanently* bunless. > Based on these observations, I think it's far more likely that the > reason why losing weight is so frowned upon by nutritionists is that > you very simply can't tell people of all ages and backgrounds that > they should lose weight fast. Some older individual is going to kill > himself, and it's very easy for even one good lawsuit to establish > liability and wipe out the profitability of any diet plan. You don't have to be old though. Google for "rabbit starvation". Anyone can suffer serious deficiency diseases. > So I'm trying to eat about a thousand calories a day, with a less than > 20% caloric intake from carbohydrates. I'm a bit worried about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Atkins goes on to show and I have scoured old medical journals to > confirm. A multivitmain is decent insurance whether you're dieting or not. And fish oil tablets if you don't eat fish regularly. It really depends on how you do it... and the studies don't show differences between someone who eats the same stuff, just small portions of the carby stuff, vs. people who replace the starches with vegetables. Personally, I eat so much more veggies low-carbing that I don't think of it as a less nutritious way to eat, but a more nutritious way. > Now the issue of losing weight, when it comes to me, seems to be food > addiction before any other. Not genes, nor willpower, but addiction. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that leads to a lack of socioeconomic success and personal > fulfillment, as defined by our society. I don't find food addictive except carbs. Once past the induction-stage, cravings don't hit much. During the withdrawal process, I will overeat a lot, but not once the cravings subside. The only real exception is nuts and nut butters; I can very easily over-do those calorically. Strangely, something like almond flour, which is the in-between state from whole nuts to nut butters, doesn't spark the same sort of tendency to overeat. > I have seen this pattern of behavior over and over in myself, and I'd > be willing to bet anyone reading a low-carb newsgroup has as well. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > puny self, a determination to not give in and do what is easy but > choose instead what is right. The thing is, you can cut carbs to nada, but you can't cut food that way. It's not like smoking or alcoholism, where going cold turkey works cause you do have to eat. The trick is to eat stuff that doesn't kickstart the addiction. For me, bread and pasta are ALWAYS going to cause problems, regardless of how long I go without them or how much weight I lose. I just don't ever binge on tuna and salad. It doesn't happen. You have to find out what foods work that way for yourself. > And that, for me, leads to the inescapable conclusion that I really > have to stop enjoying food, enjoying eating all I want, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > quite certain that the food demon will kill me, unless I finally > manage to throw him off and wrestle him into eternal submission. IMO, an awful lot of it is biochemistry. The type of hunger that kicks in when I eat carby foods is painful and can wake me from a dead sleep, it takes a LOT of willpower to overcome that. Whereas the hunger I experience on low-carb is such a minor feeling that I often get distracted and forget to eat all day. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >> First -- welcome to the group. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >wannabe ain't gonna cut it at that point. (That might fall under >someone's else's definition of "real food," but not mine.) Hi, Eric -- To be quite frank, I've snipped the rest of your post because I just couldn't process it (and now that I'm ready to send this one, I'm sure there are many that won't get through mine, either <g>) . That's my problem, not your's. But here's what I have to say about what I could understand: I don't think $6.00 a day for food is excessive. You can spend that grabbing a "value meal" for lunch. And if you think I'm referring to "some ultra-special preservative-reeking soya cracker-wannabe" as "real food" then, well, I'm not. Here's my idea of "real food" -- Breakfast: Decaf coffee with Splenda and cream, an egg scramble (sausage, bacon or ham with a couple of eggs, some sauteed (sp?) green pepper and onion, a couple of eggs and some cheese). Sometimes, if I'm feeling "fancy" I make it into an omelette and have some cantalope. Lunch: "Big Salad" (tuna, ham or grilled chicken, lots of leafy green lettuce, avocado, tomato, green onions, ranch dressing and grated cheese -- sometimes some "real" bacon bits on there, too. Dinner: Grilled chicken, or a grilled burger patty, or a steak -- "real" protein -- steamed, stir fried or roasted veggies (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage or brussels sprouts), a garden salad and maybe some sugar-free Jell-O (sometimes with a dab of "real" whipped cream). Sometimes I skip breakfast, sometimes I don't. This is just an "average" day. If I feel like raiding the fridge, I have Jello-O there if I want something cool and sweet. I also keep beef stick or summer sausage and a block of extra-sharp cheddar in the meat bin and slice off a piece for a quick snack. Planter's has some neet nut mixes now (pistachios, cashews, almonds, etc.), and I could definitely over-eat those. So my trick is to put a serving in a custard dish to nibble on -- I don't take the can with me when I sit down to watch my "must-see" TV. I mostly shop the "outside" of the store, where the "real" meat and fresh veggies are. I also keep my freezer stocked with "real" meat and bags of frozen veggies -- sometimes my snack is a bowl of steamed broccoli with butter, salt and pepper. There's nothing magical here -- it's just "real" food. When I come home from the grocery store, most of what I buy goes in the fridge -- I don't have a lot of boxes and cans to put away. At least once a month, the checker makes a comment about how I must "really like to cook" because of what's going in the bags, but as you can see, pretty much everything on my menu is just simple food. And there's really no time committment -- I can spend 30 minutes cooking dinner or 30 minutes driving to Taco Bell and back -- and spend more money. And the best part is that it's tasty and I don't feel like I need a nap everytime I eat. I look forward to my meals, and I also look forward to not feeling sluggy afterwards. My husband and teenage son don't have a weight problem and they aren't diabetic -- but they eat this way, too. None of feel "deprived." I keep some things in the house that they really like, but I don't eat, such as oatmeal, whole grain bread, fresh fruit. I don't get any complaints. My hubby is an OTR truck driver and looks forward to coming home and eating "real food" -- which is easier to find in truck stops than it used to be, but it's still hard to eat on the road. As a matter of fact, I gained most of my weight when I was pregnant with my son, and the rest of it while I was driving a truck. My son is almost 6'5" (he likes to tell people he's 6'5", but we measured him the other day and he's "just" 6'4-3/4" <g>) and size 13 shoe (ack!) and still growing. He's lean and healthy and knows what to eat and how to cook it -- that's more than I can say for a lot of kids *and* adults these days. Just a few weeks ago, after a *long* day in town, he was "starving" and it's a 45 minute drive to get home. So I asked him if he wanted to stop for fast food -- and he told me no -- it makes him feel sick! If he goes off to college and balloons from stuffing himself on pizza, chips and soda (which we don't have in the house, by the way -- I drink water and he drinks whole-fat milk and water), it won't be because he's been taught that way. And hopefully, if that does happen, he'll know what to do about it and actually do it. But it won't be because he's been raised to believe dinner comes from boxes and bags. He has a healthy attitude about food, doesn't eat when he's not hungry, and I have plenty of healthy snacks in the fridge for him when he wants to graze. The typical dinner fare where we live is fried catfish, beans, corn bread and canned corn. They wouldn't know what to do with a head of lettuce if it dropped in their lap. My son often tells me he's tired and draggy after eating at a friends house and I know what he means. My mom always made sure we left the house in the morning with a "good breakfast" of Cheerios or Wheaties -- and I was tired and dragging before I even left the house. I can spend $10.00 for each of us to eat out at a sit-down restaurant, or I can spend $10.00 on a package of boneless, skinless chicken breasts that will feed us for a week. Low-carb hasn't been expensive for us because what we do buy goes a long way. That $3.00 box of cereal disappears in two days because there's no nutritional value in it -- you might as well eat the box. You can spray all the vitamins and minerals on a piece of wood -- that doesn't make it "food." I know I'm on a ramble here, but I get so tired of people saying LC is expensive and doesn't work when they haven't *done* LC. You said in another post that you'd read the Atkins book, I believe, fifteen times -- but I didn't see where you'd actually used the program -- perhaps that was later in your post. Sometimes it takes more than analysis based on a (perhaps faulty) paradigm to determine if something is effective. I wish you all the best in the program that you've decided to implement, but I'm not optomistic that you've found a long-term solution to your problem(s). I will be truly happy for you when you show my assumption to be wrong. SignatureBlueBrooke 254/225/135 MY OFF-THE-WALL DIET, AS DOCUMENTED BY ATKINS November 11, 2007 Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat 40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I remember why I hate digital scales. I finally went down to my basement and unearthed my copy of Atkins. It's: _Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution_ Robert C. Atkins Avon Books, NY 1992 First Avon printing: January 1997 ISBN 0-380-72739-3 Back to the Benoit study: Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher, but if I cut out the psyllium husk laxative (as an initial measure, it's also recommended by Atkins, on page 273) and the milk (ever tried to drink vanilla-flavored protein powder mixed with water?), my carbohydrate intake will drop to exactly 10 grams (cheese, 8 grams and protein powder, 2 grams). My caloric intake will be more or less exactly right on target, although I'll be eating a lot less fat and a lot more protein. This corrects (maybe) the problem detailed in the footnote on page 234, that "the diet is deficient in protein and is therefore not suitable for long-term use, unless amino acid supplements are given periodically." Will the performance of the diet significantly change due to the fact that I am ingesting less fat and more protein? We are in virgin territory here. I'm a bit worried, but not much. Will I be unable to maintain my potassium levels without significant supplementation? In the Benoit ketogenic study (page 70), dieters did, but I am not all that optimistic. And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to make two quarts, the Splenda costs 20 cents and the unsweetened mix packet goes for 24 cents. When a 20-oz bottle of spring water costs as much as a 20-oz bottle of soda, and if you buy by the two-or-three liter you'll have flat soda in a New York minute, you've got to think outside the box. Don't get me wrong, I love diet soda and I'll suck down plenty on this diet, but when 64 ounces of Kool-Aid costs less than ten ounces of the more socially acceptable bottle of spring water or diet soda, I've gotta go with my childish urges and reach for the smiling pitcher. I should also mention that for the last seven years, I've been abroad and there was no Kool-Aid to be had where I was, sugar-free or otherwise. My current wave of enthusiasm for the stuff must be examined in that light to be appreciated as something other than a plain and simple Peter-Pan neurosis. So the only thing that is not "according to Atkins," as it were, about my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn day for a long time. I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this diet. It is also a part of my experience that hunger is indeed a great equalizer when you're eating so few calories every day. And as I mentioned in my first post, in the developed world, only the veteran dieter ever truly finds out what it means to be hungry. My diet, as I described it at first, just looks off-the-wall because Atkins and the rest of the low-carb crowd tries to seduce you with breathy descriptions of delicious, rich foods loaded in protein and fat, steering your attention away from the annoying, inconvenient fact that no matter what you do, if you've been fat for a long time, you can't eat until you feel full and lose weight. Metabolic advantage, boundless ketogenic energy supply, that's all little more than bull, in my experience. The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue on a strict low-carb, low calory diet than on a strict high-carb, low calory diet. Secondly, a strict low-carb diet does clamp down a good bit on hunger and causes your mouth and stomach to re-evaluate its attitude regarding portion size. * * * em (Mike), I've been reading your posts elsewhere the group and the gentle suggestions you've been getting to try to help you cut down on the backsliding, by focusing you on reducing your caloric intake. Like you, if I just count carbs and count on my stabilizing blood sugar and appetite to regulate my food intake (as Atkins promises will happen), I'm dead in the water. I can easily eat three pounds of meat, wait three hours, and eat three more pounds. Zero carbs, huh? No weight loss! What's really cute is how Atkins tries to deal with the fact that he's got to convince people like you and me to stop shoveling it in, people whose appetites do not become controllable without a definite exercise of will and behavioral modification. The book abounds with exhortions to "eat all you want!" and "enjoy!" and fairy tales about natural insulin appetite regulators in his 15,000 clinical patients, so it's easy to miss the one and only place where Atkins deals with poor gluttons like me, on page 231 ("For you the most effective strategy might be to say to yourself , 'I'll eat just enough that I'm physically free of intolerable hunger signals, and no more.'"). Personally, I have no idea what an "intolerable hunger signal" is, and I'm sitting here writing this post having eaten half-a-pound of cheese today and having drunk a cup of milk, and nothing else. I will tell you that at the moment I am better prepared psychologically to tolerate the hunger signals that I feel right now than the many times I've woken up ravenous after having eaten a large pot of mac-and- cheese the night before. Hunger is a largely relative, psychosomatic phenomenon in the compulsive overeater, because the wiring upstairs is more screwed up than Atkins or anyone else wants to admit. I am damned certain that if I start eating right now, and I have a large amount of food available to me, I will continue to consume it until it is all gone or I feel full to the point of bursting. Atkins's promise that I will feel "satiated" and continue to lose weight (page 126) means nothing to me, and I feel comfortable assuming that this giant hole in the notion that a low-carb intake leads automatically to a self-regulating appetite has been something of a sticking point for many of you in your often interrupted, often-postponed, thrice-and- more-denied voyage to Slenderville. > Like > you, if I just count carbs and count on my stabilizing blood sugar and > appetite to regulate my food intake (as Atkins promises will happen), > I'm dead in the water. I can easily eat three pounds of meat, wait > three hours, and eat three more pounds. Zero carbs, huh? No weight > loss! Probably the lack of fat for its satiation character would be the leading cause of this enormous meat eating. Personally, if I ate that much meat, I'd want to have a club lying around with knife and fork being optional. > What's really cute is how Atkins tries to deal with the fact that he's > got to convince people like you and me to stop shoveling it in, people > whose appetites do not become controllable without a definite exercise > of will and behavioral modification. He tells you about 8 or 9 times to "Eat till satisfied, not satiated". It isn't a minor point in his more recent plans. Your meat binges above are eating till satiation. > The book abounds with exhortions > to "eat all you want!" and "enjoy!" and fairy tales about natural [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Personally, I have no idea what an "intolerable hunger signal" is, Eating 6 pound of meat per day just might qualify, or at least serve as an alternate intrepretation of the expression. > and > I'm sitting here writing this post having eaten half-a-pound of cheese [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > large amount of food available to me, I will continue to consume it > until it is all gone or I feel full to the point of bursting. This is eating till satiated, not eating till satisfied. > Atkins's > promise that I will feel "satiated" and continue to lose weight (page [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > many of you in your often interrupted, often-postponed, thrice-and- > more-denied voyage to Slenderville. Eating a fat filled dessert is more satisfying than eating a sweet one with modest carbohydrates. You probably need to listen to someone like Roger talk about the role of fats in the low carb diet. Atkins didn't really do a good job of discussing this. Doug will have his own position to tell you. Again, a fat filled dessert is more satisfying to me than a sweet one. Hey everyone, thank you for your responses. There have been some wonderfully helpful, intelligent, supportive, constructively-critical individuals writing in this thread, far more than I could have hoped. I don't have time to respond to every post here, but the two most helpful suggestions must be recognized. Many thanks must go to Jackie Patti both for her eggs suggestion (I'll be following that soon!) and her Salt-Lite recommendation (330 mg of Potassium per serving!). We disagree on our biochemistry versus psychosomatic understanding of hunger, but I have my reasons for that. Hollywood, my NC-17 comment was for people to understand that all kinds of things might pop up in this thread that they might not want their children to see. It was not an attempt to titillate, nor will I go out of my way to be offensive. There are 3000+ members in this group and some of the things that I'm going to share I wouldn't tell my own children about, if I had any. And you were not at all harsh: honesty is much appreciated. FOB, damn straight, no scale can properly determine bodyfat content, as I am sure we will quickly see as I continue to post my readings. I like water quite a bit, so I might just ditch the Kool-Aid, but let me get my fill, for now, OK? It's a lot easier swilling lots of bug juice than lots of water: I've got one last little pleasure to ingest every day...don't take it away! There is some health and eating history in my family that I really should share now, at the beginning of this thread. My father had a weight problem. When my dad was in his thirties, he started taking a drug called Micronaise for his high blood pressure. Ten years later, he was diagnosed with diabetes, which seems now to be a common side effect of the drug (who knew?). He hung on for 20 more years, but succumbed at 63, disabled, half-blind, and prone to almost any infection under the sun -- it was pneumonia (during the SARS epidemic, and I have my suspicions, but no country in Europe wanted to admit that their birds were contaminated, so there was no investigation was done, and there was no way we could make one happen) that put him in a coma and a hospital infection that carried him off. My brother is overweight and has high blood pressure. Unlike me, he only put on weight when he went away to college. He's spent the last 12 years trying to lose the hundred plus pounds he put on, dieting the low-carb way. My mother is overweight, but that's only been since her 30s, and her own hypertension didn't manifest until her 50s. One of my grandmothers was chronically obese all her life (on my father's side). The other (mother's side) is still alive, hypertensive, and has been overweight since at least her 40s. One of my grandfathers died in his sleep at 45 from a stroke, before I was born (mother's side, he was not overweight). My grandfather on my father's side was also not overweight: he was a semi-professional soccer player with no significant health problems until bone cancer got him at 73. So, in response to those who have mentioned it, yes, there is indeed a clear and present history of Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure in my family. On the other hand, some of these people lived in a country and a time when there wasn't much in the way of health care, and I really don't have all the answers. The urban area where my father's father lived is quickly becoming a recognized and infamous cancer cluster, usually ascribed to the high-voltage power lines that run 20 feet from the balconies on the streets. Let me re-qualify that: the lines themselves run at eye level 20 feet from the balconies -- I'm not talking about the base of the posts that hold them up. In the years that I also lived there, I could easily hear the lines humming at night. There is very little doubt in my mind that this contributed to my grandfather's early death, but of course, I can't prove it. So, with this in mind, good night, and thank you all for contributing. I'll get up tomorrow, check my stats, finish tomorrow's article, and post away. No scale can accurately determine your bodyfat content. As for something to drink, nothing beats water, straight from the tap. | MY OFF-THE-WALL DIET, AS DOCUMENTED BY ATKINS | [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] | many of you in your often interrupted, often-postponed, thrice-and- | more-denied voyage to Slenderville. > Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat 40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two > days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I > remember why I hate digital scales. You've kicked probably 6.5 lbs of fluid tied to glycogen stored in your liver. It's nice to see the scale move, but let's not get mental here. Wait until the end of week 2, then start counting the weight lost. > Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat > diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher, > but if I cut out the psyllium husk laxative (as an initial measure, > it's also recommended by Atkins, on page 273) and the milk (ever tried > to drink vanilla-flavored protein powder mixed with water?) Uhm, if the purpose is to ditch real food, you can't really complain about taste, right? Lots of people slug down whey and water (self included). It takes getting used to, but if you're in the "dump real food and get into diet mentality" why not go there? > And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie > beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > liter you'll have flat soda in a New York minute, you've got to think > outside the box. Think in the box first. Dump the kool-aid and the splenda. Now, you're cost free. Get a 1L water bottle (you might own one already) and fill it with, get ready, tap water. It's like kool-aid+splenda only it contains fewer chemicals. A lot fewer depending on where your tap is. > So the only thing that is not "according to Atkins," as it were, about > my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn > day for a long time. Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable matter daily. So, you're not according to Atkins. Like it makes a difference. DANDR isn't the Bible, and even that's less than infalible. > I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion > control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this > diet. It is also a part of my experience that hunger is indeed a > great equalizer when you're eating so few calories every day. And as I > mentioned in my first post, in the developed world, only the veteran > dieter ever truly finds out what it means to be hungry. I submit that only the veteran dieter understands how to diet unsuccesfully by any long term measure. Keep doing what you've done and you will get what you've always gotten. > The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I > have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue > on a strict low-carb, low calory diet than on a strict high-carb, low > calory diet. Secondly, a strict low-carb diet does clamp down a good > bit on hunger and causes your mouth and stomach to re-evaluate its > attitude regarding portion size. Your diet is wacky because: 1- you need a laxative to move the food out. 2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food 3- Kool Aid seems integral to the variety aspect. 4- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again. 5- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again. I repeated 4 because it's really essential that you get this in. If you do the same junk you've always done, you will get the same junk you've always gotten. I'm gonna kick some reality here. If you lose 90 lbs in 90 days, you're going to be losing muscle in there with the fat. You are not going to shed 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories and running 3 miles a day. That's reality. It sucks. Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue to eat cheese and run 3 miles a day for any extended period of time, so you're going to regain 90 lbs of fat, possibly in 75 days, and you're going to be worse off for the effort. You might even gain 100 or 120 lbs of fat, possibly in 75 days, and then you'll be really happy, I guess. The ultimate question is not one of losing. It's one of maintaining your losses. If you're going to be there in 90 days (you're not, but let's assume for the sake of discussion), what will you be doing in February to make sure you're not going back on Cheese, Flax and Kool-Aid in June? > > Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat 40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two > > days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Wait > until the end of week 2, then start counting the weight lost. You have a point. > > Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat > > diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > food > and get into diet mentality" why not go there? > > And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie > > beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn > > day for a long time. You've got a point. > Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that > during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable > matter daily. So, you're not according to Atkins. Like it makes a > difference. DANDR isn't the Bible, and even that's less than > infalible. Uhm, (no...I'm not going to indulge in your brand of sarcasm tonight, Hollywood. Maybe another time.) Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting. "The beautiful fact about fasting and the Atkins diet is that one can use the /Induction/ diet to creat a maximal outpouring of FMS and then, without an interruption, switch into fasting without going through the hunger/discomfort that characterizes the first two days of a fast." (Page 233) Flip to the next page and have a look at the information. I've already cited the footnote in an earlier post. If you're willing to suffer the hunger pangs, there is no restriction offered against doing it. No, I'm not getting into BDK the easy way, through the Induction diet, but I am doing much the same thing. Furthermore, drastic cuts in food intake in the first stages of low calory dieting seem to provide the most fodder for much of the controversy surrounding the practice. Dr. Willard Krehl's opposition to dieting (pg. 71) is Atkins's reference for that, and if you look at the German studies (pg. 73). The study I remember best, Pilkington's published in Lancet (pg. 67), makes Atkins's case even better. He does "blithely eliminate the first 12 days of the low-carbohydrate from their mathematics). If I remember correctly, the side-by-side charts all start twelve days later and the fact that the first twelve days are missing are referred to in a footnote. As far as DANDR goes, I am not saying that _New Diet Revolution_ is the Bible. I have dial-up access, limited time to spare for on-line research, and I know the book pretty well. A no point have I claimed that this book is the Bible, but you've got to start from somewhere, don't you? > > I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion > > control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > unsuccesfully by any long term measure. Keep doing what you've > done and you will get what you've always gotten. I've never tried what I'm trying now. And I understand that my writing style seems to offend you. I do use terms like "I submit" in my post because it doesn't sound as pretentious to me as it does to you. Fine. I'll try to tone it down, but it's hard sometimes, for reasons I'll probably discuss someday. > > The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I > > have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If you do the same junk you've always done, you will get the same > junk you've always gotten. And now, here we are again. You're being overtly offensive, Hollywood, and it gets worse throughout your post. I'm trying hard to be nice. I've already explained the use of a laxative in the initial stages of the diet (as Atkins recommends) and I've managed to cut that out already. On the cheese thing, I can understand why you would feel that eating half-a-pound of cheese a day is wacky. I find some of the Fat Fast recommendation listed in Atkins equally wacky, e.g.: "five handfuls of macadamia nuts (one ounce each), per day, or the equivalent." (pg. 235) I find your ability to slug down whey and water unusual, myself. I've never done it, and at the first opportunity, I found a way to get around it. You've got to admit, mixing milk protein in with water and choking it down can be more than a bit nasty. If I have to do it again, well, Eye of the Tiger! At some point, I promise I will explain my reason for doing it better, OK? For now, let me just say that it serves four purposes, rigorous portion control, behavioral modification, easy access, and low cost. And finally, the Kool-Aid. Damn, the heat is on the Kool-Aid. By the way, I don't do much in the way of variety. Tropical Punch all the way for me. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, give me some time, OK? > I'm gonna kick some reality here. If you lose 90 lbs in 90 days, > you're going to be losing muscle in there with the fat. You are not > going to shed 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories and > running > 3 miles a day. That's reality. It sucks. > Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of > cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lbs > of fat, possibly in 75 days, and then you'll be really happy, I guess. OK, the "you'll be really happy" stuff is getting to me, Hollywood. I don't know why you cannot communicate your convictions without trying to insult the person you're addressing. Maybe you had a bad day at work. But what did I say to you? Is the fact that I disagree with you on some issues so difficult to discuss without hostility? I know that the losing fat versus muscle issue is difficult to digest. But pull away from your anger and look at the research.The ketogenic diet Benoit used made his dieters lose 14 pounds of fat, out of 14.5 pounds total (page 70). Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not necessarily a high fat diet. It's worth testing, isn't it? And since I have only one test subject... It's a bit more complicated than all that, but let's let it be for now. > The ultimate question is not one of losing. It's one of maintaining > your > losses. If you're going to be there in 90 days (you're not, but let's > assume for the sake of discussion), what will you be doing in February > to make sure you're not going back on Cheese, Flax and Kool-Aid > in June? Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. How about I focus on losing it now and start working on my maintenance diet about 20 pounds out? And please don't attack me again, especially without looking at the matter more carefully? I've got a feeling that something else caused the insulting tone of this post than what it might be taken to be, if your last post is anything to go by. I could use your help, even as a voice of caution, especially since you obviously know a lot about low- carb dieting. > Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done > to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting. Well, not really. The Fat Fast is not part of the normal Atkins programs; it's intended for the small minority of folks who don't get into ketosis from induction. Atkins uses induction to get you into OWL, OWL to get you to pre-maintenance and then finally maintenance. That's the main plan. I can give a nice long list of criticisms of Atkins; I don't like his book much. But the basic plan is pretty damned good if you work the stages, though I doubt most folks need all the supplements he insists on or the caffeine restrictions. Still, it is a plan for *life* in which you start with the basic necessary foods, protein/fat sources and vegetables, and add to it as tolerated. Can't go too far wrong with that basic plan. > If you're willing to suffer the hunger pangs, there is no restriction > offered against doing it. No, I'm not getting into BDK the easy way, > through the Induction diet, but I am doing much the same thing. The objection is to you calling it Atkins. I've read Atkins, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, CAD, Zone, Bernstein, one of Lyle's books, the FAQ of this newsgroup. I use the basic principle of putting some fat-containing protein on my plate and filling the rest of the plate with veggies, but am not strictly doing any of the official diets and don't call what I'm doing after any of those program names. I do my own home-grown version of low-carb. > I've already explained the use of a laxative in the initial stages of > the diet (as Atkins recommends) and I've managed to cut that out > already. I don't see any problem with using fiber supplements myself. Sure, vegetables are highly preferred as a fiber source, what with the micronutrients and such, but fiber isn't exactly a *laxative* in the sense that milk of magnesia is. Fiber is a noraml food component. > I find your ability to slug down whey and water unusual, myself. I've > never done it, and at the first opportunity, I found a way to get > around it. You've got to admit, mixing milk protein in with water and > choking it down can be more than a bit nasty. I don't care for whey as much, but have no problem knocking down milk isolate protein. It's not nasty at all. It's pretty much just powdered milk without the lactose. I usually add cream to my protein shakes, so they really *are* just milk without sugar. I make a mocha shake with coffee and cocoa, a strawberry shake with frozen berries, a pudding shake with a quarter package of sugar-free instant pudding (a *bit* carby), or just flavor the suckers up with a DaVinci syrup. I don't find them any nastier than milkshakes made with milk. > OK, the "you'll be really happy" stuff is getting to me, Hollywood. I > don't know why you cannot communicate your convictions without trying > to insult the person you're addressing. Maybe you had a bad day at > work. But what did I say to you? Is the fact that I disagree with you > on some issues so difficult to discuss without hostility? D00d, if you think this is hostile, well... you ain't been around Usenet much. He's being a bit sarcastic at ya, but it's not a flamewar or anything. > Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate > the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is > essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in > carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not > necessarily a high fat diet. You want to look into it a bit more. This is the deal: some amount of protein (over 50%) can convert to glucose. A smaller amount of fat (around 10%) can convert to glucose. There's specific ratios of carb, protein and fat that make a diet ketogenic - these have been well-defined for diets for epilectic children. Fat having the lowest conversion rate helps the ratios out a lot more than protein does; in fact, you can overdo protein and raise bg from that. Low-carb *and* low-fat is not appetite-suppressing. Google on "rabbit starvation" - people subsisting on lean meat don't do well. Course, you're eating whole eggs and an amazing amount of cheese, so you're not doing low-fat anyways. I find it a bit perplexing that you find a 1/2 lb cheese per day to be a frugal way to go though. Cheese is pretty much my most expensive protein source short of something like scallops or the occasional really nice steak. Hamburger or chicken is a lot cheaper than cheese. > Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. How about I focus on losing it > now and start working on my maintenance diet about 20 pounds out? Maintenance is not trivial; diets that have maintenance built-in do better than diets that postpone that. I was just reading Lyle say that the other day over on his forum... the whole reason he recommends people doing his PSMF eat whole foods is cause it's a lot easier to use that as a basis for a permanent diet than if you just lived on protein shakes or egg whites or such. I'd again suggest his book if you really want to do a fast weight loss deal; it's basically still a fad diet, but a lot more logical than most. If you really want to cut the calories to the bone and lose as fast as possible; his plan makes sense to me. > And please don't attack me again, especially without looking at the > matter more carefully? I've got a feeling that something else caused > the insulting tone of this post than what it might be taken to be, if > your last post is anything to go by. I could use your help, even as a > voice of caution, especially since you obviously know a lot about low- > carb dieting. Seriously d00d, get over it - or you'll freak when you get really flamed. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > > Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that > > during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Uhm, (no...I'm not going to indulge in your brand of sarcasm tonight, > Hollywood. Maybe another time.) > Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done > to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting. My reading (out of date, I'm a protein power life plan person) is that fat fast is what you do when induction and ongoing weight loss don't work for you. I'd submit that you haven't actually gone through the Induction, much less an attempt at OWL, so with Robert Atkins as your cardiologist/weight loss doctor, you wouldn't be where you are. I will submit page 271 in the 2002 10th printing paperback (I guess I don't have the same one as you afterall, though it's a 1992 copyright as well), under the heading "None of the Above?" That's where the fat fast is is discussed. After we've discussed extreme metabolic resistance, a highly disrupted insulin metabolism, prescription drugs, hormone therapy, anti-depressants of the SSRI category, NSAIDS, Beta blockers, diurectics, hundreds of other drugs (unnamed at press), thyroid hormones and candida as possible explanations for the weight not coming off. After all of that, THEN you do the fat fast. And that gets back to the core issue. Your goal is to lose very large very quickly. That's really, well, what everyone wants. It tends not to happen for very many. And those who do lose very fast have to maintain or progressively cut back further on their diets to maintain their losses. There's no return to thrice weekly fast food gorging. So, this mentality of "I lose fast or I don't lose" is, well, not constructive for the long term. I'm sorry, Eric. Someone had to tell you. Without dancing. > As far as DANDR goes, I am not saying that _New Diet Revolution_ is > the Bible. I have dial-up access, limited time to spare for on-line > research, and I know the book pretty well. A no point have I claimed > that this book is the Bible, but you've got to start from somewhere, > don't you? You can start and stop there, frozen in perpetuity. Or, you can start and continue. Your version of DANDR is 15+ years old. A lot of the science is a lot better understood now. Some isn't. Protein Power is only 12 years old. Protein Power Life Plan, only 7. Men's Health Targeted Nutrition Tactics, a mere 2 months old. You can start somewhere or you can start somewhere. > > I submit that only the veteran dieter understands how to diet > > unsuccesfully by any long term measure. Keep doing what you've > > done and you will get what you've always gotten. > > I've never tried what I'm trying now. What I meant was the "lose fast or not at all" mentality. So, you haven't done the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid diet before. Perhaps you've done the master cleanse. > > Your diet is wacky because: > > 2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > macadamia nuts (one ounce each), per day, or the equivalent." (pg. > 235) As I've established, by starting with the fat fast, you're essentially cutting to the end of the plan, without working the steps to see if that's warranted. It is, your experiment. And perhaps it's the right one. Who am I to say otherwise? But what's the point? If it's to feed the all or nothing mentality, you've essentially already lost the 95% lottery. > I find your ability to slug down whey and water unusual, myself. I've > never done it, and at the first opportunity, I found a way to get > around it. You've got to admit, mixing milk protein in with water and > choking it down can be more than a bit nasty. Nitrean vanilla + water = not awful upon accomodation. Same + 1 TBS DaVinci Syrup = more useful combination Core + 1/2 cup berries belnded in = pretty decent Core + 1/2 cup ice, stick blended = not too bad either. If you go to a gym, and talk to the guys lifting, a lot of them drink the water and whey. The milk is a lot of fast sugar, not terribly useful. Maybe heavy cream instead, but I don't need anything that filling. > At some point, I promise I will explain my reason for doing it better, > OK? For now, let me just say that it serves four purposes, rigorous > portion control, behavioral modification, easy access, and low cost. Let's break it down: Portion control: Good, but limited long term value due to the limited variety of the approach. Behavior Mod: And the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid modification serves how in the big picture of your life? Ease: Fine. Low Cost: The "high cost of low prices" extends beyond discussions of the societal value of Wal*Mart. > And finally, the Kool-Aid. Damn, the heat is on the Kool-Aid. By the > way, I don't do much in the way of variety. Tropical Punch all the way > for me. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, give me some time, > OK? It's your life. I wouldn't do that, but I'm sure I do stuff you wouldn't do either. > > I'm gonna kick some reality here. If you lose 90 lbs in 90 days, > > you're going to be losing muscle in there with the fat. You are not [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > work. But what did I say to you? Is the fact that I disagree with you > on some issues so difficult to discuss without hostility? Many people have put this to you very nicely. It clearly hasn't sunk. I tried a different tact. I'm sorry. But really, maximize your happiness in the long term. > I know that the losing fat versus muscle issue is difficult to digest. > But pull away from your anger and look at the research.The ketogenic > diet Benoit used made his dieters lose 14 pounds of fat, out of 14.5 > pounds total (page 70). First: when you cite Benoit like gospel, you're citing a study with 7 subjects. Seven. But forget Benoit. Let's use logic. Calorie math is junk. But still, you're holding 3500-4000 kcal per lb of fat. You're looking to dump 90 lbs of fat, so, 315,000 kcals of deficit/expenditure, at the bottom end. We figure you were eating 3000 kcals per day when you weren't dieting, and now you're at 1000. So, 2K/day. 3 miles isn't 1500 kcals. http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm If you're cranking 10 minute miles, an hour gets you maybe 1200. And if you're cranking 10 minute miles, and running 3 miles, you're not doing an hour. So, you're short on your pound a day. Never mind the metabolism ramp down or the loss of thermic effect. I'm sorry, a seven person study doesn't get you there. Last thing on Benoit vs. you. 10 days. That's what Benoit's 7 subjects (or maybe 3-4 subjects) did. Not a long term adjustment. So, you can make projections on what would have happened on day 11 or 15 or 20, but the further out you get, well, your ability to predict goes down. Remember, your metabolism makes adjustments. Conserves resources. Adapts to it's environment. > Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate > the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is > essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in > carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not > necessarily a high fat diet. I think you can duplicate Benoit's 14.5 lbs loss in 10 days. I would quibble with their finding in that it doesn't seem to factor liver glycogen dumping, but the study is from before Woodstock. > It's worth testing, isn't it? And since I have only one test > subject... You're only 6 behind Benoit. But it's your science experiment. > And please don't attack me again, especially without looking at the > matter more carefully? I've got a feeling that something else caused > the insulting tone of this post than what it might be taken to be, if > your last post is anything to go by. I could use your help, even as a > voice of caution, especially since you obviously know a lot about low- > carb dieting. I've voiced caution. You are welcome to throw it to the wind. As I explained, I tried a different tact to make an impression on you. Maybe it worked, maybe not. Run your experiment, but always be open to making adjustments. And, for the sake of sustainability, of beating the 95% problem, I think you're gonna have to. > > > Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that > > > during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > After > all of that, THEN you do the fat fast. Right. What Eric is doing does include a tiny part of material from the Atkins books but it isn't Atkins. I strongly object to calling wierd made up plans "Atkins". Call it the "Eric Blackway: Weight-Loss Program" as in the subject line and stop calling it Atkins and that objection goes away. People making up extreme diets like all bacon double cheese burgers with no bun and then incorrectly calling it Atkins is a major source of bad press. Don't call what you're doing Atkins unless you're following the directions, and you give no hint you have even considered the long list of requirements for the Fat Fast. BTW, folks use the Fat Fast to bust stalls and though that's technically an abuse it works just fine - You haven't been on enough days to consider stalls. > And that gets back to the core issue. Your goal is to lose very large > very [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > term. I'm > sorry, Eric. Someone had to tell you. Without dancing. Several have repeated it. My version was all-or-nothing tends to result in nothing. > > As far as DANDR goes, I am not saying that _New Diet Revolution_ is > > the Bible. I have dial-up access, limited time to spare for on-line > > research, and I know the book pretty well. A no point have I claimed > > that this book is the Bible, but you've got to start from somewhere, > > don't you? Yet you're citing the book while ignoring the requirements for the Fat Fast. That means you came in with a preconceived notion of what you want to do and you're using the book as justification. That's fine if you don't call what you're doing Atkins, but it is certainly not following the directions for what Atkins actually says to do. > > I've never tried what I'm trying now. That's fine. Has it occured to you that you aren't the first and that the regulars on ASDLC are reporting to you the results of the bunch of people who have tried the Fat Fast or variations before you started? Your body, your science experiment and all that but don't pretend that the regulars are writing from your lack of on-topic experience. If you really believe you will do what others have done before you and you will get different results, then go ahead and believe it. You discussed that in another post. But don't also dismiss the fact that regulars are basing their repsonses on prior experience. > What I meant was the "lose fast or not at all" mentality. So, you > haven't done the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid diet before. Perhaps > you've done the master cleanse. > > > > Your diet is wacky because: > > > 2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food The Fat Fast as described in the book suggests cream cheese. > > > 3- Kool Aid seems integral to the variety aspect. And completely switching away from it is extreme. Serving sizes tend to be selected to just barely qualify to round down to zero so checking the serving size and calling each serving 0.4 or 0.5 grams is the way to go. Then decide if you want to continue using the kool-aid, knowing that lower carb isn't better for loss rates (consider the original study had a group eating 1000 calories of 90% protein who didn't lose as well and they were just as low in carbs as the faster losing 90% fat group, thus lower carb isn't all there is too it). > As I've established, by starting with the fat fast, you're essentially > cutting to the end of the plan, without working the steps to see if > that's warranted. And that's why I object to calling it Atkins. And don't imagine that Eric is the first to come to ASDLC trying something like this. > Behavior Mod: And the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid modification serves > how in the big picture of your life? This was discussed in another post. Starting extremist and then moving towards less extreme, the real Atkins plan as it actually appears in the book with 14 days of Induction, moving on to OWL and so on thorugh the 4 phases starts less extreme and moves towards much less extreme. Does anyone really imgine that Dr A failed to try extremist approaches? His plan as it is in the book is what it is because it works better longer for more than more extreme approaches. > > > Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of > > > cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue > > > to eat cheese and run 3 miles a day for any extended period of time, Rate of ketosis changes after about two weeks. It's extremely predictable. Folks see dark sticks early, then light beige sticks in week 3 and think something is wrong. Nope, that's what happens to almost everyone. Roughly two weeks in the body adjusts and around the time the water runs out the level of ketosis starts to closely match the metabolic burn rate. And loss rates become much harder to sustain. > > I know that the losing fat versus muscle issue is difficult to digest. > > But pull away from your anger and look at the research.The ketogenic > > diet Benoit used made his dieters lose 14 pounds of fat, out of 14.5 > > pounds total (page 70). While the mechanism behind lean sparing for high fat low carb is not well known, the fact of it is well known to the ASDLC regulars. > First: when you cite Benoit like gospel, you're citing a > study with 7 subjects. Seven. But forget Benoit. Let's use logic. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > your metabolism makes adjustments. Conserves resources. > Adapts to it's environment. It's one of many reasons that OWL starts day 15. > > Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate > > the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is > > essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in > > carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not > > necessarily a high fat diet. The original fat fast diet had the 90% protein folks lose less than the 90% fat folks, and the 90% protein folks lost more lean. So yes the high fat aspect is a part of the deal. It's the reason folks who don't get into ketosis at 20 grams per day get put on the Fat Fast not on the Protein Fast. > > It's worth testing, isn't it? And since I have only one test > > subject... > > You're only 6 behind Benoit. But it's your science experiment. And there's the history of folks in the past who tried the same. Eric gets to repeat there errors by ignoring that the ASDLC regulars use their lessons, or he gets to learn from thier experiences. So far, no learning from their experiences. > > > > Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that > > > > during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable [quoted text clipped - 193 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well, thank you for your input. <snip> Now that was classy, and I appreciate it very much. > <snip> > > Now that was classy, and I appreciate it very much. You're welcome. As with probably everyone in this thread, I wish you success in your attempt to lose weight permanently. I hope that your program works well and is everything you need it to be. We've shared concerns about your approach, but ultimately, you're gonna do what you're gonna do and we all hope for the best. We had some movement on the scale today: 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5% FOB pointed out earlier in this thread that no scale exists that can provide consistent fat percentage readings. Yet another bit of proof for that. There were two exceptional responses yesterday that I have to study carefully. In case anyone's trying to contact me personally, well, I haven't even opened any of the e-mail that goes to this address since the day I set up the gmail account. The worst of the process of entering ketosis is over, it seems. I've also switched my feeding times, so-called because I wouldn't strip the word "eat" of its inherent dignity and vitality. Even the expression "eat me" involves less contempt than what I'm doing now. This is how the schedule goes: In the mornings I eat absolutely nothing and just drink coffee, which is far less shocking in Europe than it is here, but the acids are wearing on my stomach. At 2:00 pm, I eat my cheese, today the most disgusting variety available to me, an unbelievably inferior grade of mild cheddar sold at my local supermarket for 1.69 per 8 oz. bar as the "value" brand. The funny thing is that the other stuff sold as the store brand and the standard brand are not much better, while the top-line non-deli/ non-specialty brand goes for three bucks for a 10 oz bar and is still nothing to write home about. On the other hand, if I go to Aldi, I get a slightly better 8 oz. bar of cheese than the supermarket's standard brand and pay 1.79 for it. I'm buying by the bar every day as a psychological trick to keep the cupboard at home bare, so that getting more food will involve taking the second walk of the day in the fall weather. I really, really should go to my supermarket and buy crappy mild cheddar every day of the week, but it's a 2.5 mile walk there-and-back-again and I haven't the stomach to make the trek for cheese you couldn't bait rat-traps with. At 8:00 pm, I eat my four large-grade eggs, hard-boiled and liberally seasoned with Lite Salt. I cannot stand hard-boiled eggs and so I can buy a dozen of them every third trip. That is one food that I will never binge on. I used to do it backwards: cheese at 8 pm, protein powder/eggs at 2. This works much better and helps cut down on the hunger. Whenever I've done food-intake calory restriction in the past, the pattern has always been exactly the same as regards sticking to mealtimes. I cannot afford to cheat even one minute on them. If I do, my diet is as good as over the second time I do it. I've kept records. Even now, after I get done feeding on my cheese or my eggs, my mind will spend a good ten minutes throwing up fantasies of eating as much as I want. Everything else just goes away as the lower mind torments the higher mind to ease that trembling, crawling NEED. My head plays the same games on me that it used to do with cigarettes when I was quitting. What's one cigarette? You can handle just ONE cigarette. And really, lots of people just have a few cigarettes a day, and health risks show that is isn't that bad at all, and you don't have to worryaboutjustonesohaveonehaveoneHAVEONE!HAVEONE!....and you shut the voice up and leave it to slaver on in the corners of your mind. The cravings just have to win once, but you have to win every time, and every minor victory is just a thimbleful more of shining resolve, while every defeat is a barrel of black despair. If I eat that bar of cheese at 1:59 pm, it's almost as bad psychologically as eating it at 9:30 am, because even a miniscule lapse like that turns it into an sadistic opportunity for the food demon to torment me. As long as I have that psychological edge of one minute, and I have the experience of having gained that edge day after day behind me, I can keep the demon from hooking a claw inside my chest and tearing at the heart of me. That's why I threw out that bit about backsliding, Mike. In the end, justifying my seemingly mad scheme to all of you is just an end to a means, a weapon in this struggle against what I really do believe is a demon that possesses me as real as any in history or speculation. Negative energy has never really won anything for me in the end, but right now, the challenge that I will post these numbers is going far to helping make me what I have to become, what I've become to continue in other struggles. I can't really explain it well, but it involves become void of emotion or reason or any other purpose save fighting on, not even because I think I will win, but as a matter of pure reflex and habit. So to date, it's six days and 14.4 pounds, but it would be much more fair to say that the diet really began three days ago and I've lost two pounds. Let's see if I can make it four days of dieting. And that's another little trick. Whenever I look way down the road on anything I'm trying to do or way back, I never take myself seriously. I can be as full of sh.t as anyone, but tomorrow's numbers are much more important to me right now than next year's. Which is why I really don't want to even dream about maintenance diets until I'm much closer to the end of this round with the food demon. > We had some movement on the scale today: > 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5% The first number's the scale, where do you get the second two? > > We had some movement on the scale today: > > 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5% > > The first number's the scale, where do you get the second two? Oh, I have this computerized digital scale that I went out and paid beaucoup bucks for, instead of investing in a quality manual product. But over in Europe, I had what could be considered a really nice Braun scale. It was what I call "a happy scale" because it consistently gave me readings about twelve kilos below my actual weight. But it was all I had, so I just used it for day-to-day purposes and then went down to a pharmacy in another municipality for my bi-monthly readings. This time, I figured that since I've never had an expensive digital scale, I might as well see what they could do. So I walked down to Bed and Bath and was confronted by an array from low-end to high-end. I picked out something in the upper range, paid my money, and am taking my chances. I can't find the box, but it apparently shoots a mild shock through one foot and by calculating how long the juice takes it get to the other foot and how it changes as it goes through the body, it can tell you what your body fat percentage and water percentages are. Since you have to program your height and age, I immediately thought it had something more to do with preprogrammed actuarial tables than pricey electrodes and sensors, but I'm a suspicious bastard in general. But I bought it and brought it home, and it does seem to be reasonably accurate weight-wise, so I'm using it. As far as the other numbers go, I'll take them with a grain of Lite Salt. > We had some movement on the scale today: > 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5% Congrats, although at last read you were 38% fat and 45.5% water. Of course, muscle contains a lot of water. As does everything else. So, I dunno how useful the water number is if it's not just free water like those tied to liver glycogen. I know people suggest that LC is all water weight, but I think even they would be hard pressed to suggest that you have 122 lbs of loose water hanging around. As to total composition, I think it's probably a good thing to have some water in. I cannot imagine a circulatory system working without it. > FOB pointed out earlier in this thread that no scale exists that can > provide consistent fat percentage readings. Yet another bit of proof > for that. You might look into a tape measure and some math. Not necessarily better, but I think this is the opposite of the man with two clocks not knowing what time it is. > The worst of the process of entering ketosis is over, it seems. I've > also switched my feeding times, so-called because I wouldn't strip the > word "eat" of its inherent dignity and vitality. Even the expression > "eat me" involves less contempt than what I'm doing now. Without any depth of comment here, the more I read, the more this sounds like an eating disorder. I think Jim pointed you towards emotional eating. It might be a start. > This is how the schedule goes: <snip> Nearly everything you ever read about weightloss stresses the importance of breakfast. Or at least the correlation between breakfast eating and success. Lots of explanations (metabolism quickening, insulin response, daily satieity, etc etc etc), but from the Eades (low carb) to Dean Ornish (no fat) to the NWCR (generally low fat) to even Kimkins (low everything), breakfast and water consumption seem to be major points of concurrance. If I were you (obviously, I'm not), I'd move two of the eggs to the morning, with the coffee. A bigger question though: If you don't like eggs, why are you eating them? You're getting what, 28g of protein from them? You could replace with something you like more at 28g of protein. Of course, eggs are brilliant for you in near about every way (you might look into alternative prep methods), but so is broccoli, and I'm not eating that any time soon. > Whenever I've done food-intake calory restriction in the past, the > pattern has always been exactly the same as regards sticking to > mealtimes. I cannot afford to cheat even one minute on them. If I do, > my diet is as good as over the second time I do it. I've kept records. Not to harp, but this sounds like both an indictment of food intake calorie restriction and an invitation to a food-based psych disorder. > Even now, after I get done feeding on my cheese or my eggs, my mind > will spend a good ten minutes throwing up fantasies of eating as much > as I want. Everything else just goes away as the lower mind torments > the higher mind to ease that trembling, crawling NEED. A lot of folks believe that intense cravings and food fantasies point to some nutrient lack in the diet. I will say no more on that. > That's why I threw out that bit about backsliding, Mike. In the end, > justifying my seemingly mad scheme to all of you is just an end to a > means, a weapon in this struggle against what I really do believe is a > demon that possesses me as real as any in history or speculation. You do what you gotta do. > > We had some movement on the scale today: > > 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5% > > Congrats, although at last read you were 38% fat and 45.5% water. > Of course, muscle contains a lot of water. As does everything else. On the scale discussion elsewhere in the thread - The scales that use electricity to estimate body fat percentage are notorious for their lack of accuracy. But does that matter for one person using one scale? As long as you average the data across at least a week and ignore single day swings, I don't think so. As long as it shows the trend in the weekly average, it tells you what you need to know - the direction of the trend and any week-long reversal in the trend. > > The worst of the process of entering ketosis is over, it seems. I've read claims by Dr Atkins that the harder you find Induction the more you're likely to benefit from his plan. This should apply equally to people no non-Atkins low carb plans like Eric. A hard first couple of weeks should point to more health benefits and better loss later on. Everything comes with a price, though. More health benefits and better loss while on-plan also means worst health loss and faster regain while off-plan. Though many find low carbing easy to stay on, that never equals hard to fall off. It's always trivial to fall off plan no matter what type of plan; the best any offer anyone is easy to stay on. > > I've > > also switched my feeding times, so-called because I wouldn't strip the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sounds like an eating disorder. I think Jim pointed you towards > emotional eating. It might be a start. There's a chance the root cause is on the physical side, and low carbing handles the insulin resistance and blood sugar swings on the physical side. For those who follow the actual directions of Atkins including the eliminate and challenge aspect, they also discover food intolerances that trigger addictive behavior patterns. So at very least, physical causes can be removed from the table and that at least makes "fix your head" less difficult. But what do folks with eating disorders do? Extremist stuff. Doing extremist stuff isn't sufficient to accuse someone of having an eating disorder but it is one item on the list to be suspicious of. I don't think Eric has an eating disorder. Nonetheless, treating yourself as if you have one might not be all that bad - One item in the list of actions is to resist extremist approaches. As long as Eric does progress to less restrictive food over time as he's mentioned then he'll be clearly following that and thus not having an eating disorder. > Nearly everything you ever read about weightloss stresses the > importance of breakfast. Or at least the correlation between > breakfast eating and success. And nearly all of that material has been about keeping it off the way I read the reports. > Lots of explanations (metabolism > quickening, insulin response, daily satieity, etc etc etc), but > from the Eades (low carb) to Dean Ornish (no fat) to the NWCR > (generally low fat) to even Kimkins (low everything), breakfast and > water consumption seem to be major points of concurrance. I think breakfast is a hunger prevention plan. Eat breakfast and with the sdame total calories for the day you end up less hungry during the day. Less hungry means less physical drive to move off-plan. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and in some way this maps to an ounce of breakfast makes a pound of binge less likely. > If I were you (obviously, I'm not), I'd move two of the eggs to the > morning, with the coffee. Think of it as a step towards building a maintenance plan. No time like the present to start building for maintenance. > A bigger question though: If you don't like eggs, why are you > eating them? You're getting what, 28g of protein from them? Eggs get boring, but for an afternoon person boring in the morning just doesn't matter. I eat about the same breakfast every day and as an afternoon person I long ago decided I didn't care if it ended up boring in the morning. For a morning person, variety or personal tastes matter a lot more in the morning. > > Whenever I've done food-intake calory restriction in the past, the > > pattern has always been exactly the same as regards sticking to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not to harp, but this sounds like both an indictment of food intake > calorie restriction and an invitation to a food-based psych disorder. Consider that moving steadily to a less restrictive diet on a schedule of week to week is not cheating. It's the heart of the process. And if you add in food X some week and it triggers a binge, as long as you retreat to very low carb and avoid that food type from then on as alesson learned, that's a victory not a defeat. One less thing that can kick you off maintenance several years down the line matters a lot more than a one week setback during the loss phases. Very hard to wrap the emotions around that view of it! > > Even now, after I get done feeding on my cheese or my eggs, my mind > > will spend a good ten minutes throwing up fantasies of eating as much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A lot of folks believe that intense cravings and food fantasies point > to some nutrient lack in the diet. I will say no more on that. Or of psych issues. Extremely hard to tell which. But Eric isn't eating food that puts him short on essential fatty acids or essential amino acids. And once in ketosis carb cravings should go away (not for everyone as Eric already pointed out, just for most). And vitamin and mineral lacks shouldn't appear this early. So it's more likely to be old habits struggling for their lives than a nutrient lack at this point. The way out of that battle is the way through not to appease the old habits to keep them alive longer. Still, a good supplement program is a good idea. More than just a good quality multi. It's possible that there's a pre-existing vitamin or mineral deficiency if Eric hasn't been taking at least a good multi before starting. > > That's why I threw out that bit about backsliding, Mike. In the end, > > justifying my seemingly mad scheme to all of you is just an end to a > > means, a weapon in this struggle against what I really do believe is a > > demon that possesses me as real as any in history or speculation. > > You do what you gotta do. If it works under the category of "fix your head" then it works. > > > We had some movement on the scale today: > > > 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5% [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > > If it works under the category of "fix your head" then it works. Doug, I have proof positive that low-carb dieting does control my appetite in general when it's done right around the 2000-2500 calory level, but I have no similar indications that my binge cravings are significantly affected by it. The idea that a nutrient lack may play an integral part in my binge cravings is medically sound...but I've been taking Centrum for about five years. For anyone else reading this, I would like to make the following important point about nutritional supplementation. I paid hard for this lesson and I would like to share it. When I am on any significant caloric restriction, it is far more difficult to maintain it without the Centrum. Of course, back when I was 17, I did high-carb crash- dieting with no vitamin supplementation, and was able to maintain that, but that was back when I was 17. In my records in past diets, once I started keeping tabs of how often the binges hit on days when I forgot to take my multivitamin, the coincidence of it became suspicious. Almost uniformly, I gave in to binges on days when I did not take my vitamins. I then realized that there was a good chance that I would unconsciously not take the vitamin on a day when I was most susceptible to the urge to indulge -- my brain was playing tricks on me. Now I have one of those 7-day pill minders and I pop my multi- vitamin right after weigh-in every morning. Incredibly, I sometimes "forget" it then as well, so on the sheet where I record my weight I have to erase the notation, written the day before, to "take your vitamin" before I can log my results. Yes, I am treating myself as if I have a behavioral disorder. Yes, it is an extremist approach, which is why I would not recommend it to anyone else, especially at this stage. My take-everything-away approach is primarily motivated by countering the binge-tendency head- on, but there is also another factor to this that I should share. I'm one of the guys who have classic migraine syndrome. I go half-blind in one eye and I know that in an hour-and-a-half I'll have an incapacitating hemocranic headache that leaves me in a dark bathroom retching over the toilet. The way that's usually treated, or at least minimized, is that you carefully log exactly what you eat and your experiences throughout the day, and then work with a doctor to analyze your triggers. There are two, for me, chocolate and bright light. A combination of these two is guaranteed to bring on a migraine for me. If I do not eat chocolate and I'm careful about my eyes, I only get about two incapacitating attacks per year. So I have some experience in documenting "trigger" behavior, and yes, fifty pounds down the road I'll be thinking in those terms. Right now, we're still in the first minute of the round. Your comments about breakfast are well taken, but they rely primarily on an understanding of dieting as something far less than modified fasting, as well as the cultural biases I mentioned earlier. If you do have questions about this, I can elaborate, but I doubt that a discussion between UK-US eating habits and Continental European eating habits will get us anywhere, as the Europeans are universally thinner, especially where I was. Low-carb diets are seen as the height of insanity there, thanks to cultural biases. I like a bit 'o breffy as much as the next man, though. > Doug, I have proof positive that low-carb dieting does control my > appetite in general when it's done right around the 2000-2500 calory > level, but I have no similar indications that my binge cravings are > significantly affected by it. The idea that a nutrient lack may play > an integral part in my binge cravings is medically sound...but I've > been taking Centrum for about five years. What I take from the Atkins books - Cravings are caused by a lack of macro-nutrients in the diet. But once in ketosis the carb cravings disappear. I've never been cnvinced one way or the other that micronutrients trigger cravings. The other half is that binges are triggered by food intolerances that cause addictive behavior reactions. One important aspect of Atkins is eliminate (restrictive start) and challenge (add back in per the food ladder) then avoid anything that causes a problem when reintroduced. The third half is that Atkins ignores the psych part. > on, but there is also another factor to this that I should share. I'm > one of the guys who have classic migraine syndrome. I go half-blind in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If I do not eat chocolate and I'm careful about my eyes, I only get > about two incapacitating attacks per year. Atkins claims his process prevents migraines. Before starting I suffered 3-4 delibitating ones per year. Since starting on 1999-06-21 I have had ONE and that one was during a month extremely off the wagon. I don't know what my triggers are but whatever I now avoid must be it. > So I have some experience in documenting "trigger" behavior, and yes, > fifty pounds down the road I'll be thinking in those terms. Right now, > we're still ... Fifty pounds in versus the 15th day on normal Atkins. Your body, your science experiment. You asked Hollywood about the tape measure. In the original Protein Power book by Drs Eades there is a chapter on the topic. It's one of the best chapters in any dietary book I've ever read. There's also a chart that comes with any Bowflex home gym. > > Doug, I have proof positive that low-carb dieting does control my > > appetite in general when it's done right around the 2000-2500 calory [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > There's also a chart that comes with any Bowflex home gym. Thanks. I think I've read the book, but I'm not sure...that was a very long time ago in terms of educational experience if it's the same book. Black cover, gigantic physique on it? Maybe it was _Power, A Scientific Analysis_ that I'm thinking about, published back in the 90s. Damn good book on powerlifting. The Eades name sounds so familiar, though... Migraine triggers are most often refined-carbohydrate foods or foods loaded with natural sugars. It makes sense that Atkins does do a lot to get rid of them, but every time I've been on Atkins I've lived in an area that gets about as much sun as Southern California, and I couldn't avoid the light, summer or winter. November 18 Weight: 266.0/Fat %: 37.5%/Water%: 46.0 So far, we're at 10 days and 17 pounds, or, if we discount the glycogen/water dumping of the first 3 days, about 4.5 pounds in six days. Interesting. Increased protein intake has indeed slowed down weight loss versus previous 1000-calory true Fat Fast diets in my past. The science behind low-carb austerity dieting is proven out yet one more time. Strangely enough, even the scale seems to be agreeing with Benoit. Averaged over time, fat readings have gone down approximately 0.5% and water readings have gone up 0.5%, which is as it should be since fat retains less water than other types of tissue. One of the things that is always a temptation but I'm working on avoiding is, on the night of the stutter-step second-day (when the scale consistently reflects a loss), I have tended in the past to keep myself parched throughout the night in order to make sure the weight reading in the morning is as low as possible. This can slowly sap at your willpower. So what I do is make sure I drink a lot of water every day, and when I feel the urge to deprive myself on that second night, I drink even more. By the way, everyone, this is my fourth day with no Kool-Aid. Sucralose does strange things to your digestive process when it makes up more than a truly trifling part of your diet, and the aggravation is just not worth it and one of those small, maddeningly annoying things that eats away at your willpower on a diet like this. I may drink a bottle of diet soda walking from place to place, but no more Kool-Aid. I still have the invisible raspberry stuff in the fridge, and it's not like my Tropical Punch or Splenda is ever going to go bad. ----------------------------------------------- This morning the food demon unveiled his latest strategy, or, at least one of his old tricks re-mainfested. The full-frontal cravings having been beaten back over and over again, what I think of diet-fatigue cravings are starting to set in. The food demon has gotten very good that this. It used to take a lot longer for these kind of cravings to get started up, but as my body has adapted over previous attempts to knowing what's coming, the food demon has come to realize that when I get past a week on any diet, I can be stubborn about busting it for any craving. It's not full-on binge cravings, nothing like the screaming desire to gorge, or the sneaking temptation of, "Oh, come on...eat just a bit more. It's all right..." (which then turns into a screaming desire to gorge). It's more like diet boredom and scorn for the lack of variety of foods in my diet. Not only is it far more logical than binge cravings, echoing many thoughts of ridicule voiced earlier in this thread, but it's accompanied by a sinking feeling of tiredness and general fatigue. Until I start having suicidal thoughts or sink into fugue states where I stare at the wall for a few hours at a time, I really don't think it's fair to dignify what used to be called "unhappiness" or "melancholy" with the name "depression." It comes and goes, at least, but unless I recognize it for what it is, another food-demon strategy, I'm a goner. The food demon twists my head around and I think, "Today, I'll vary the pattern. I'll change it around a bit and do something different: not more calories, just some variety. It's OK...for today." The second I do, the second one thing varies in the pattern of eating for the day and the carefully-reinforced pathways of habit in my mind are deviated from, the food demon attacks again with binge cravings of monstrous proportion. And because I'm in new territory, I'm more likely to give in to them. And, of course, I didn't wake up until 12:30 and I didn't eat until almost three o'clock. Being significantly late on that 2:00 feeding time, when I eat the 8 oz. of cheese, is almost as bad as being a minute early. To think, just yesterday I was relieved that the binge cravings seemed to have settled down a bit. The food demon was probably just trying to give me a feeling of false security before he tried throwing the craving ball instead of running it down my throat. So, three kinds of cravings so far. 1) Full-on eating-attack binge cravings 2) Temptation to eat just a bit more 3) Diet fatigue cravings The three work together, one reinforcing the other and turning into another at moments of opportunity with a single goal in mind, to get me to eat MORE. Let's see what else surfaces in the next few days, because, like most dieters I've talked to, what gets me off a diet tends to be a very subjective opinion on my part once I'm off the diet. I either tend not to think about it or make up an excuse that is absolutely ludicrous once I look at my records. That's how I discovered the correlation between skipping a multivitamin and giving in to cravings. > November 18 > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > discovered the correlation between skipping a multivitamin and giving > in to cravings. Your postings seem more like one from a meth addict. I think you've got the right idea about restricting your present diet foods to only a few items. I have read of some other dieters that have beaten down their food demons by going strict meat and eggs for life. Perhaps you may consider this route. Maybe you can pick a few protein and fat combinations that are neutral. I find that eggs are that way for me. I know you don't like them but you do eat them. Perhaps you're not hungry enough yet to like them. When I'm hungry, I'll eat lots of them. When I'm not hungry, they don't interest me. Eggs nutritionally, may be one of the most perfect foods, as it contains everything it needs to make a whole animal contained in a convenient package. There was the case of the "25 eggs per day man" http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/liver/eateggs.html Explorers and Natives in the past have eaten pemmican only for months at a time. Ray Audette swears by it in his book "Neanderthin". I also make my own, and like this food for it's advantages as a neutral food as well as it's shelf life, compactness, and portability. Since it is labour intensive, it may not be right for you. A fatty cut of steak done rare is as good or likely better. Eating could be done just for survival rather than an enjoyable experience. Find joy in other aspects of your life if food is a problem. You may also find that controlling this one aspect may make your life happier in other areas by improving body health and frame of mind. Many people believe that a person's food choices have to taste great or have lots of variety. If taste and variety foods are part of the problem, than eating only foods that you don't like or have a neutral effect may be the answer. You're already doing it now. Just do it for life. I don't eat donuts, chips, pop, chocolate, cakes, cookies, potatoes, rice, pasta, bread and a few other things I can't think of off the top of my head. These are all foods I can not control just by having one bite. I have no plans to eat any of them again, or to find fake substitutes for them. It was a great loss at first, similar to losing a best friend. Now, there are no cravings. I purposely choose foods that are bland. This is not in agreement by many low carbers for whatever reason. But it works for me. "Sometimes in people's search for the best, they overlook the good". > > We had some movement on the scale today: > > 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5% [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > You do what you gotta do. I don't trust the other numbers at all on my scale. For one thing, the instructions make a special point of mentioning that they vary quite a bit and that you have to take readings at a precise time, 3 hours after you're awake, at exactly the same time every day, to get accurate numbers, and even then, they'll only be accurate relative to each other. That's an awful lot of disclaimers for accuracy, and I do not intend to go OCD on my weigh-ins. Could you by any chance lead me somewhere that I can get the procedure(s) with the tape measure? I'm not too keen on measuring my fat percentages right now, but I like your analogy and new information never hurts. I used to have that at my fingertips, but that was a decade and three countries ago. You comment regarding an eating disorder is well taken. I feel I do have some serious obsessive problems with eating in general, for lots of reasons. I would not call them an eating disorder, however, because I've been in crash therapy with anorexics and sitting here and talking about my problem in those terms widens the "disorder" label to the point where we lose sight of the significance of anorexia as neurotic behavior with a clear and present self-destructive suicidal tendency. The eggs screw my stomach up signficantly. For the past two nights, I've switched back to protein powder and water. On breakfast being the most important meal of the day and the explanations provided for that, it could be, but you have to admit that nutritional advice is often culturally biased, as is medical advice. I have a hundred for- instances, but most of them would have you laughing and I doubt you'd believe me. But when it comes to crash dieting, there is something to the importance of the name of the meal. It is significantly harder for me to maintain diet discipline throughout the day if I have something in my stomach in the morning that gradually disappears, while in the absence of that growing feeling of hunger and a general sameness to it every morning, I experience significantly high levels of day-by-day success if I "break my fast" a bit later in the day. One final point: I've been waking up at 12:00 these past few days because I'm rewriting my posts all night. Exactly the opposite is true for me on diets with levels of higher caloric consumption. There, general binge cravings seem to ease for me if I eat a set breakfast every morning. I hate hard-boiled eggs, to the point where I vomit if I eat them cold. Have you ever heard of Georges Bataille? He was a radical surrealist back in the twenties who had an interesting theory about the egg, the eye, and the testicle all being related in our unconscience. His first book, _The Story of the Eye_, is considered by some to be the most brilliant piece of snuff pornography ever written. You can probably find a translation of it on-line. I like cheese as much as the next guy, so I've decided against adding more entertainment to a behavioral-modification diet primarily designed to mortify my taste for food. If I find this is not working, and that I still can't control my liking for food at the end of this phase of dieting I'll start measuring out vegetable shortening for my "meal." Please God, no! "Eric" <Eric.Blackway@gmail.com> Hi Eric, Seems to me you're doing pretty well with on your plan in terms of meeting your goals. OT, but... > One final point: > I've been waking up at 12:00 these past few days because I'm rewriting > my posts all night. What do you do for a living? One of those crazy stay up all night programmers? Mike 11-15-07 267.4 lbs/37.5% Fat/46.0% Water I've exceeded the average Benoit study weight-loss results in 6 days, not ten, but I'm 6'2" and quite a bit fatter than any active serviceman. Hollywood, this post is LONG. Start reading it when you have time. For others...it ain't worth much. Maybe not for Hollywood, either, but he made some good points and he deserved a thoughtful response. -------------------------------------------------------------- > My reading (out of date, I'm a protein power life plan person) is that > fat [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > After > all of that, THEN you do the fat fast. -------------------------------------------------------------- You're absolutely right, I am NOT one of Atkins's "extreme metabolical resistance" people. Neither was there conclusive proof that any of the Navy subjects in the Benoit were either. They were, like me, simply men who had trouble maintaining their weight, despite all their efforts to the contrary. That information is not listed in _New Diet Revolution_, but it is in _Annals of Internal Medicine_. And by the way, could you do me a favor and check your citation on page, number 8? That reads "Archives" and it should read "Annals." I'd like to know if they corrected that typo in five years of printing history, or if I'm the only cuss who's ever actually looked back there. Le's get back to those "enlisted men." Wait a minute....they were not quite like me. The second I read the magic word "enlisted," the light turned on. I don't know if you've ever been in the service, but one of the few ways to get out of the military with an honorable discharge before your enlistment is up is to "eat your way out." I once knew a guy who did it, and he explained how it works. There are a very small number of people put on significant weight for practically no reason at all from one year to the next of an enlistment, although they stay on documented diet and exercise programs that are exactly the same as the ones that, in the immediate years before, they had no trouble maintaining their weight on. So there's a special discharge provision for these "million-dollar- lardasses." The way you fake being one of these people is not really to sneak an extra hamburger or two at mess. You'll get caught that way. Whenever you go off-base, you load up on starches and sugar and hide them away in your footlocker or somewhere else that's safe. You gradually go to higher-fat choices in the lunch line. Especially if you don't live with others, it's relatively easy to make sure you combine your high- fat diet with an extra-high carbohydrate level. Even if you're on a ship, you can still sneak in sugars and starches out of your stash. It all works better if you've got a buddy or two you can trust to help you, because they can hide the stale bagels and syrup packets you use to "supplement" your diet if you've got a brighter-than-average chief watching you. The next step as your weight begins to balloon is that you get sent to the base hospital or the ship's infirmary and a doctor makes you document your diet for a week before he takes a look it. "Why," he exclaims with pompous certainty, "You eat too much fat!" He'll hand you a low-fat, high-carb, restricted calory diet and you'll be instructed to follow it. Your immediate CO and your chief gets a copy and a lot of eyes fall on you wherever you go. You pound down all the starches in the mess that are on your list and start sneaking high-fat items like Snickers bars. If you work the system right, you're out. If your chief catches you gobbling your Twinkies he disciplines you and everyone who MIGHT have known that you were trying to eat your way out. This tends to lead to multiple midnight sessions of a popular military pastime involving spare socks and spare change. Occasionally a bare light bulb and your balls are also involved. I suspected from the start that at least some of the Benoit "extreme metabolic resistence" patients were in reality guys who were working this trick way back when, which would explain why they would be confined to a naval hospital for weight loss, as well as treatment of assorted "on-the-job" injuries. This, for me, meant that there was a very good possibility that if someone who wasn't actually metabolically resistent, like me, went on the diet, it wouldn't kill him and might produce similar results. Plus that, in my judgment Atkins in no fool and he did publish the diet. That was back years ago. Since then, I've done plenty of time on low- carb diets, quite a few Fat Fasts with whipped cream, cream cheese, or some other kind of cheese, more lenient versions with beef or pork, that sort of thing. I've never exceeded the Fat Fast five-day limit. I've come into it during ketosis, and right after a binge. I came up with the idea for the diet that I'm following now before I left Europe, three months ago, but I wanted to save it until I'd been in the USA for a while. ------------------------------------------------ On the subject of why I feel my prescription drug use in the past may have something to do with my weight problem and why I can't do that much investigation into my suspicions, some of the stuff I've taken wasn't around when my printing of Atkins went out, either. There is also very little information on the main drug that was stuffed down my throat because it has been taken off the market and information is really not forthcoming. Everyone I've talked to about it gained weight on it and most still have a lingering weight problem. Since the company that put it out is being sued because it's been shown to cause signficant organ damage, no one's looking into other side effects as pedestrian as weight gain. Another of the drugs I've taken is considered to be, by everyone with even a remote knowledge of it, the ultimate psychotropic weight-gain drug. Since once you go on it you're never supposed to go off it or other drugs like it, there has been no published research done on what happens to your weight after you stop. ------------------------------------------ So once again, you're right. I agree. I AM MOST DEFINITELY NOT USING THE FAT FAST AS THE ATKINS PROGRAM DICTATES. And while my diet is only minimally modified from what Atkins details as one of "his" diets, I AM NOT FOLLOWING THE ATKINS PROGRAM. I AM FOLLOWING A LOW-CARB DIET UNDER MY OWN TERMS. I AM NOT AN ATKINS DIETER. I AM JUST A LOW-CARB DIETER. I AM NOT AN ATKINS DIETER. I AM NOT AN ATKINS DIETER. I AM NOT AN ATKINS DIETER. I AM NOT AN ATKINS DIETER. I AM NOT AN ATKINS DIETER. I AM NOT AN ATKINS DIETER. I AM NOT AN ATKINS DIETER. > And that gets back to the core issue. Your goal is to lose very large > very [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > term. I'm > sorry, Eric. Someone had to tell you. Without dancing. You are absolutely right, again, but you're simplifying the "core issue." Part of the reason I want to lose weight quickly is because I have never managed to lose weight in any other way, but I've proved to myself in the past that I am one of that group that can effectively lose weight quickly on a TEMPORARY basis. The will power necessary to maintain a 3 month, 1000 calory diet is for me in many ways identical to the will power necessary to maintain a 3 month, 2000 calory diet. On the cutting-down process later on, that will become more important the closer I get to the goal, and I'll probably most on that then. Anyone who starts an austerity diet and holds on until that point is well acquainted with how that can destroy your morale. Without some form of austerity diet, though, any form of dieting simply hasn't worked for me for a significant amount of time. Without something that takes real minute-by-minute effort to devote myself to, without powerful hunger pangs gnawing at me to remind me every second of every day that I'm on a diet, I'm sunk. A tangible, measurable payoff day-by-day and week-by-week enables me to fight the binge cravings, because on austerity dieting they comes at you hard and fast, not sneaky-like when you're not looking (another point for maintenance dieting). If you binge once on a low-carb diet at about 2500 calories, you've set your diet back at least two weeks, on a high-carb diet, about a week. I've tried it more times than I can count, and it doesn't work for me. The binge tendency is a problem because perversely, the diet is too easy to do to face the binge tendency down. My suspicion is that my hyperactice appetite and my tendency to binge have been influenced by a number of both physiological and psychological factors, most already detailed in this thread. But then again, when you talk to them privately, a lot of people turn out to have a binge eating problem and a hell of a lot have exactly the same problem as me in making the 2-pounds-every-sixteen-weeks thing work. Practically every unmarried woman I know is on a plan like that, and very few of them are exactly where they want to be. What I'm leading up to here is this question: could it be that there is a continuum of degree here in binge-eating, and might it not be a matter of separating people into two groups, the have-a-problems and the haven't-a-problems? Is this maniacal insistence (that carbohydrate reduction ALWAYS leads to appetite reduction and that ALWAYS leads to intake reduction/reliable weight loss (freaks aside, of course) less of a fact and more of a marginalization mantra in the Church of the Messiah of Low-Carb? How many times has the word "craving" and the word "backslide" been used in this group? There are over 3000 members of a low-carb dieting support group when the most prevalent advocate of low-carb dieting is willing to say: Once you learn of the caloric richness and satiety that the eating program within these pages provides, its impact should hit you like a sledgehammer. 'This is not dieting,' you will feel, 'this is a banquet.' And as weight loss and improved well-being take place, you will feel exhilaration, relief and confidence that getting and staying slim will be a breeze and that the end of your weight problem is clearly in view. (Preface, xiii) Are there any online support groups for banqueters? Would that be: alt.support.diet.swallowthisbullshitandsmile? It takes will power, you might respond, and both my inability to lose weight and keep it off, and all these other people's really represents a lack of personal character, now that we've been shown THE WAY. Well my lack of dieting success on a go-slow diet, and my inability to stick at 180 or so, as I've gotten older and done things I'm proud of, has lost its claim on my ego. Instead, there's been a growing suspicion that while I'm at the far end of the bell curve, a whole lot of people have been and are being hoodwinked by the Right Reverend Atkins. Long-term weight loss is, at best, a proposition with a 95% failure rate, back then, now, and probably tomorrow. Even Atkins mentions that only from 3 to 5% of people who lose weight on restricting calories keep it off (page 15). He uses that statistic to qualify what you would think is a statement that practically everyone his own system manages to keep it off. The actual language goes: "These are the results for better than 90% of the tens of thousands of people under my personal supervision who have adopted the diet explained in this book, and I assume a very large percentage of the millions who have done it on their own." (Page 5) So, the second these patients were not under Dr. Atkins's personal supervision, they entered into the land of "assumptions." Ten million copies of the first _Diet Revolution_ were sold(page 9). How many of _New Diet Revolution_? Let's be very conservative and say the same. Twenty million copies of Atkins running around, and assume that no one lends the book to anyone else and that no used book stores ever get a copy of it. There are 300 million Americans right now. Say about 30% of them obese, 100 million. If one in five of these obese Americans have bought Atkins and that 90% of them enjoyed permanent weight loss, that's 15 million successful dieters!, then why can everyone agree that the documented 95% strike-out rate hasn't changed a whit for a long, long time? Say my math is screwy, say that it doesn't take into account the many millions that tried Atkins and are now slim, say whatever...twenty million dieters don't even make a one percent different in the strike- out rate? Have you ever talked to a clinical nutritionist? They all tell you pretty much the same story, that their diet has shown real success, NO MATTER WHAT DIET THEY USE! The kicker is that these professionals always disclaim knowledge of the dieters after their separation from them, or the dieters who quit, or anyone else who might not bolster their results. Sure, as long as patients stay under a nutritionist's personal supervision, they will lose weight. I suppose that paying x number of bucks for a diet and clinical observation a powerful motivational tool for doing exactly what a nutritionist says. Add to that all the support mechanisms, and it gets easier. But once that weight comes off and the patient says goodbye to their nutritionist and bids a tearful farewell to their motivation...well, we're in assumption-land then, aren't we? And the obesity epidemic marches on. Everyone gains it back, low-carb and high-carb, fast-losers and slow- losers except for that 3-5%. And that 3-5% universally state it's because they changed their eating and their exercise habits permanently. They modified their behavior. If you can show me any no- quibble data proving me wrong, you'll make me a very happy man because I can stop choking down the dogshit I'm eating. Once again, the only reason I'm using this strange diet is behavioral modification. Otherwise, I would be far less quick to neutralize all my forms of food enjoyment. I would eat pretty well, even in my straitened financial circumstances. Granted, it's difficult to have a world-class salad where I live, but I'd do my damndest. I'd work out an arrangement with a butcher and order some good stuff. Granted, you can only find middling-grade olive oil and condiments in the USA unless you're willing to pay extortionate prices, but I'd shop around and make the best of a bad situation. Thank God for Aldi. 2000 kcal a day on low-carb does restrict intake signficantly, but you can certainly eat tasty food even if you make minimum wage and don't live in expensive housing. But even if I didn't feel there was something wrong with my appetite, I would use a low-carb diet to take weight off quickly, if that was what I wanted, because it doesn't cannibalize muscle tissue in the same way that high-carb austerity diets do. I have personal proof of that, in a study of one, me, as mentioned earlier in this thread. Soon, I hope to be able to provide more recent proof, but since I do not intend to publish eight by tens of my fat a.s getting thinner, you'll have to take my word for it. > You can start and stop there, frozen in perpetuity. Or, you can start > and continue. Your version of DANDR is 15+ years old. A lot of the > science is a lot better understood now. Some isn't. Protein Power > is only 12 years old. Protein Power Life Plan, only 7. Men's Health > Targeted Nutrition Tactics, a mere 2 months old. You can start > somewhere or you can start somewhere. Hollywood, when you write something like this, I see it as an attempt to appeal to my belief that new science supersedes old science in the Hegelian progression of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, in the eternal lockstep of progress that leads to the continuing realization of Being as Spirit. Since I do not accept the Hegelian view of history, it's a hard sell for me. And since we're popping off the names of things we know about as spurious arguments of authority, you in dieting trends and me in philosophy, let's go back to the term that was used so much earlier in this thread, "paradigm." Most people nowadays usually get to this term via Stephen Covey's _The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People_ in one way or another, but I've read Thomas Kuhn's book, _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_, which introduced the term to academia twenty years before it showed up in self-help books. But with my background in formal Derridean deconstruction, I tend to see this historical trend toward developing new diet plans involving names including terms like "Revolution, Power, Tactics" as part of the active solification of a structure neutralizing the action of play around a center. I suspect we could both spend a year explaining to each other what we're talking about if we left out the brand names. I also happen to work in a field where EXCITING NEW DISCOVERIES FILLED WITH PROMISE are being made all the time and yet the measured effectiveness of what I do hasn't changed one real iota since around 1850. With that in mind, every time the colored balloons come out and the confetti falls for a new product launch at the conventions I go to, I don't bite until the shills show me the money. Stripping any vestige of holiness from the term "progress," what I'm doing is following a philosophy of low-carb dieting that's been around in a form recognizable to the one I'm using since the fifties (the Kekwick and Pawan studies published in _Lancet_). Clearly, low-carb dieting hasn't worked for the world at large, or else there would be a flood of commissioned studies supporting the long-term benefits of low- carb dieting far more clearly than what we have now. WHERE IS THAT RESEARCH, the new science? It would have taken the world by storm by now, 15 years after _New Diet Revolution_. If there was some tangible, fungible proof that this worked long-term, that low-carb dieting was, as Atkins puts it, "the secret of easy weight loss" (Preface, page xiii), the people behind the low-carb protein bars and the 0-carb desserts would pool some money and do bigger and bigger studies and make more and more money. They'd fight the establishment inch by inch and win, just as the anti-tobacco crowd did, and they'd make billions, just like Nicorette does selling $40.00 gum (which you can buy for six euros in Europe). Instead, the low-carb crowd is comfortable within their market shares, just like the homeopathic crowd and the herbal remedy crowd, but, to give you another example, NOTHING LIKE THE VITAMIN C MONEY-MACHINE. As you put it later in this post, the "master cleanse" sh.t doctors can buy infomercials late at night to do their song and dance, and their reformulated flax is flying off the shelves. And all they do is show thinned-out, bug-eyed ghouls explaining pictures of green turds in low, weak voices. Where are the low-carb boys in late-night? I'm an insomniac, and I've seen no charts, no diagrams, no time-lapse animations. Where I was in Europe, far from the FCC's bans against fraudulent advertising in the home of caveat emptor, during breaks in dubbed Oprah reruns, this over-Botoxed whore with a French accent shills a cellulite weight-loss program that involves greasing up your midsection with some mutant Vaseline and then wrapping yourself up in shrink wrap for a few hours a day. "PROVEN IN FRANCE BY THE WORLD- FAMOUS 'L'INSTITUT DES BRONCHES CUES'!" I'm in a good mood now. Somehow, I've managed to achieve it, despite the hunger pangs. > What I meant was the "lose fast or not at all" mentality. So, you > haven't done the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid diet before. Perhaps > you've done the master cleanse. No, but I find your continued concerned inquiry into the particulars of my bowel movements a trifle worrisome. As I've established, by starting with the fat fast, you're essentially > cutting to the end of the plan, without working the steps to see if > that's > warranted. It is, your experiment. And perhaps it's the right one. Who > am I to say otherwise? But what's the point? If it's to feed the all > or > nothing mentality, you've essentially already lost the 95% lottery. I've tried to make this clearer in later posts. It's not to feed the all-or-nothing mentality, but as a program of behavioral modification. This is not what I intend to do for the rest of my life. > Nitrean vanilla + water = not awful upon accomodation. > Same + 1 TBS DaVinci Syrup = more useful combination > Core + 1/2 cup berries belnded in = pretty decent > Core + 1/2 cup ice, stick blended = not too bad either. > If you go to a gym, and talk to the guys lifting, a lot of them drink > the water and whey. The milk is a lot of fast sugar, not terribly > useful. Maybe heavy cream instead, but I don't need anything that > filling. You've yanked my chain for days about Metamucil and Kool-Aid, so... Pick whichever of the following two responses to your revelations above least offend your linguistic sensibilities: 1) I find that it is incumbent upon me to submit at this point in our discussion that the palatability of a baboon's freeze-dried vomitus might be improved were it to be prepared in like manner. I have several unanswered concerns regarding the personal priorities of those males of our species who devote a significant share of their time and energy to the pursuit of developing their physique for the purposes of self-worship and/or attracting members of the other gender. ----------- 2) Umm, like, you just ain't gonna convince me that your protein- powder virgin berry frozen magaritas are Smurfy good and there's nothing pig-butt nas-TEY about powdered WHEY. The last time I talked to the guys lifting in the gym, especially the ones that really looked steroid-stacking-ripped and had advanced to doing their poses in their pouch, the nickname "Nubby" came to mind. ------------ But I couldn't stand the eggs tonight, I so I manned up and sucked some down with water myself. > Let's break it down: > Portion control: Good, but limited long term value due to the limited [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Low Cost: The "high cost of low prices" extends beyond discussions > of the societal value of Wal*Mart. Even though I'm really not at all 2Legit2Quit, your translation of the Greek word "analysis" is perfectly valid. 2) I've begun to explain the behavioral modification. 4) Don't get me started on use-value/exchange-value. We'll be here a while. > > And finally, the Kool-Aid. Damn, the heat is on the Kool-Aid. By the > > way, I don't do much in the way of variety. Tropical Punch all the way [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wouldn't do > either. No more knockin' the smiley pitcher? Things may never be the same between us...although I expect continued comments and inquiries on the various activities of my lower digestive tract. I skipped the Kool-Aid, today. I've got some invisible raspberry stuff that smells awful and tastes worse in the fridge. > First: when you cite Benoit like gospel, you're citing a > study with 7 subjects. Seven. But forget Benoit. Let's use logic. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the loss of thermic effect. I'm sorry, a seven person study > doesn't get you there. > Last thing on Benoit vs. you. 10 days. That's what Benoit's > 7 subjects (or maybe 3-4 subjects) did. Not a long term [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your metabolism makes adjustments. Conserves resources. > Adapts to it's environment. You are making sixteen kinds of sense right here, Hollywood, mostly in your second point, not in your calory math. Let's see what happens on the scale, IFF I manage to keep it up. Granted, I could be lying about what happens, but I'm not and I won't. The ketone-cracking, FFM/PMS theory detailed in Atkins (page 69) aside, I've done some austerity low-carb dieting in the past. > I think you can duplicate Benoit's 14.5 lbs loss in 10 days. I > would quibble with their finding in that it doesn't seem to factor > liver glycogen dumping, but the study is from before Woodstock. You're right again, and once again, we'll have to see. And your quibble is much more serious than quibble. Can you give me some info on the dumping process? > I've voiced caution. You are welcome to throw it to the wind. As I > explained, I tried a different tact to make an impression on you. > Maybe > it worked, maybe not. Your tack is an interesting point, but much of what you've written and how you've written it reads a lot more like swaggering bluster primarily thrown out to reinforce your view of your world and your own place in it rather than "concern" or "caution." That's got something to with the fact that you're just reflecting the general tone of the Usenet, but I did all that back in my teenage 1200-baud bbs days, I deal a LOT with in the groups I usually frequent, and it gets to me. However, since you do read and you obviously know how to think lucidly, and when I'm not careful, I sound a lot like an anal- retentive ivory-tower a.shole (the flax, again), I'll work hard to meet you halfway. > Run your experiment, but always be open to making adjustments. And, > for the sake of sustainability, of beating the 95% problem, I think > you're > gonna have to. This round is just getting started, and I think you're absolutely right for the final time. If I ignore even one of the serious concerns you raise, I'll lose the next fifteen rounds. > I've exceeded the average Benoit study weight-loss results in 6 days, > not ten, but I'm 6'2" and quite a bit fatter than any active > serviceman. Good. Both in the results and the understanding > Hollywood, this post is LONG. Start reading it when you have time. For > others...it ain't worth much. Maybe not for Hollywood, either, but he > made some good points and he deserved a thoughtful response. It's good that my wife sleeps late. Otherwise, I might never have time. > -------------------------------------------------------------- <military story snipped> > ------------------------------------------------ > > On the subject of why I feel my prescription drug use in the past may So, you may be metabolically resistant. The point of doing induction, challenge, expansion or fat fast correction is to know, rather than assume. Either way. > ------------------------------------------ > > So once again, you're right. I agree. I AM MOST DEFINITELY NOT USING > THE FAT FAST AS THE ATKINS PROGRAM DICTATES. And while my diet is only > minimally modified from what Atkins details as one of "his" diets, Semantic disagreement here. Atkins describes the whole process (induction, owl, maintenance, and even the fat fast) as his diet. Your diet is a modified form of one phase of the Atkins diet, designed for the most resistant dieters who have already ruled everything else out. None of that is to say what you're up to is wrong, but rather to suggest that your representation of what you're doing (A LC Crash diet, your phrase, not mine) as something endorsed by Robert Atkins is stretching the truth. Frankly, I don't hold Dr. A in such reverence that it matters to me, but it might be a disservice to others. > I AM NOT FOLLOWING THE ATKINS PROGRAM. I AM FOLLOWING A LOW-CARB DIET > UNDER MY OWN TERMS. I guess everybody's clear now. > You are absolutely right, again, but you're simplifying the "core > issue." Part of the reason I want to lose weight quickly is because I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > maintain a 3 month, 1000 calory diet is for me in many ways identical > to the will power necessary to maintain a 3 month, 2000 calory diet. I dunno what to tell you. The temporary basis doesn't matter much if you don't have a way to make it permanent. The up and down is probably worse than just staying up. But, it's your science experiment. > A tangible, measurable payoff day-by-day and week-by-week enables me > to fight the binge cravings, because on austerity dieting they comes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because perversely, the diet is too easy to do to face the binge > tendency down. Hrm. I don't buy the math as it doesn't match my experience, but nothing says my experience is any more valid than yours, or more importantly, and more relevant to your situation. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I hope you are part of the 5% who manage to lose big weight and the 1 in 20 who manage to keep it off. > It takes will power, you might respond, and both my inability to lose > weight and keep it off, and all these other people's really represents [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of people have been and are being hoodwinked by the Right Reverend > Atkins. I don't buy the moral failure argument. Others do. You might, given some time, review "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes to get a better picture of the research (and more up to date) than the 1992 edition of DANDR. Taubes doesn't have a diet to sell as it's more a book about the state of knowledge around healthy dieting and weight loss. And the research suggests to him that Atkins was right on this. Last thing. Was reading Dr. Mike Eades (of Protein Power) blog the other day. He's apparently been getting crucified by Anthony Colpo over the question of metabolic advantage and calorie counting, which I feel is probably related to this question of banqueting. Eades suggested in this post that, in terms of maintenance (not loss), unlimited fat and protein calories with low carb intake should not add any fat mass. > Say my math is screwy, say that it doesn't take into account the many > millions that tried Atkins and are now slim, say whatever...twenty > million dieters don't even make a one percent different in the strike- > out rate? So, let's suggest this. Under the supervision of, well, the real creator of the diet plan, success rates will be higher than people doing it ad lib. Lots of reasons why this would be so (public commitment, correction, more ideal instructions, etc), but to suggest that reading the book and being a patient of the man should produce the same results is, well, being obtuse. Suggesting that people will get the same results from just reading the book and doing the diet as they would from receiving direct care is dishonest or naive. Knowing what I know about Dr. A, I can make an estimation as to which. > Everyone gains it back, low-carb and high-carb, fast-losers and slow- > losers except for that 3-5%. And that 3-5% universally state it's > because they changed their eating and their exercise habits > permanently. They modified their behavior. If you can show me any no- > quibble data proving me wrong, you'll make me a very happy man because > I can stop choking down the dogshit I'm eating. The "Dogshit" you're eating. I'm not gonna say anymore. > > You can start and stop there, frozen in perpetuity. Or, you can start > > and continue. Your version of DANDR is 15+ years old. A lot of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > as Spirit. Since I do not accept the Hegelian view of history, it's a > hard sell for me. It's about incremental improvements. But forget that. In the 1997 version of DANDR, Atkins talks about early experiments starting at Duke, testing his diet. In 2007, there is Dr. Jeff Volek at the University of Connecticut, recipient of near a half million dollars from the Atkins foundation to study low carb diets and exercise. I'm not suggesting that everything has changed or that a Marxian theory of history is correct, but the history of science has been one of revision and expansion, not one of stone carved truths. We fly very far afield. I'm also going to suggest that it is possible for one perspective to get it mostly right, and multiple perspectives to get it closer to an objective truth if there is such a thing. A cherry picked data set from a 17 year old book when there are many updated perspectives and reviews, well, that's all I need to say. Gonna again recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Taubes. Very up to date, very thorough. Not comprehensive, but very very very good. >Clearly, low-carb > dieting hasn't worked for the world at large, or else there would be a > flood of commissioned studies supporting the long-term benefits of low- > carb dieting far more clearly than what we have now. WHERE IS THAT > RESEARCH, the new science? It would have taken the world by storm by > now, 15 years after _New Diet Revolution_. 1- There is a lot of new science going on. Check out Dr. Jeff Volek at UConn, and his group. Lots of stuff. 2- You really need "Good Calories, Bad Calories." You'd understand that there is research going on and why it's hard to see it, given the information cascade of the last 40 years towards low fat. You and I both know low fat doesn't work, so no point yaking about that cascade. You can't use the masses to prove anything. 500 years ago, no person believed anything but divine creation. 600 and you're talking about an earth centric universe. Hell, 300 years ago, you'd be hard pressed to find an Englishman who didn't believe in witches, werewolves, and sorcerers. What the masses believe and what's real don't really bear any relation, do they? > I have several unanswered concerns regarding the personal priorities > of those males of our species who devote a significant share of their > time and energy to the pursuit of developing their physique for the > purposes of self-worship and/or attracting members of the other > gender. Typical. I have a wife. I lift for health. I like to lift. I like it more than dreadmill. I don't hate the dreadmill. But lifting is fun. Maybe because I'm stealthy Type A and it feeds that. I dunno. But your view here is very limited and therefore, very limiting. You're not gonna find many things better for your attempts at improving your health than resistance exercises. Regardless of what the mooks at the gym have as personal priorities. > > I've exceeded the average Benoit study weight-loss results in 6 days, > > not ten, but I'm 6'2" and quite a bit fatter than any active [quoted text clipped - 223 lines] > exercises. Regardless of what the mooks at the gym have as personal > priorities. The lifting thing WOULD piss you off. Eh, what can you do. I'll get to the library at some point and see what I can do. On the subject of limiting/limited and expanded viewpoints and book recommendations...what should I tell you? _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ is a damn good book and not as boring as most academic texts or historical analyses. Hegel will bore you to sleep and Marx was a very angry man? I'm sure you have better things to do and occasionally, I rue the fact that more of my time hasn't been spent in a gym and not at a desk. One thing at least that does pertain to the discussion at hand...adding additional protein/fat calories and no carbs in the form of meat to the Induction form of Atkins dieting CAN cause me to gain weight over the course of 2 weeks, but nothing more than 4.4 pounds or 2 kilos in my experience. My definition of "metabolically resistent" comes from Atkins's definition of it. I've lost some weight on a 2000-calory high-carb, low-fat diet, I've lost weight every time I've controlled my calory intake, and I tend to maintain my weight on a non-ketogenic diet about 3000 calories per day. It's binge periods that seem to cause me to gain weight, not nutritional difficulties. > The lifting thing WOULD piss you off. Eh, what can you do. Not pissed. Just think you're self limiting with your view point. It is, of course, your right to limit yourself. > I'll get to the library at some point and see what I can do. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > occasionally, I rue the fact that more of my time hasn't been spent in > a gym and not at a desk. So, I'm not giving out a recommendation on Taubes as an idle good book. It's something that you'd find particularly relevant to what you're up to at the moment. Again, initial suggest was for expansion of understanding behind Atkins' understanding. Many on here claim that Atkins' understanding was deeply flawed. I haven't close read it in five years, so I couldn't say. Have read quite a bit of other stuff since though. > One thing at least that does pertain to the discussion at > hand...adding additional protein/fat calories and no carbs in the form > of meat to the Induction form of Atkins dieting CAN cause me to gain > weight over the course of 2 weeks, but nothing more than 4.4 pounds or > 2 kilos in my experience. Interesting. Is this addition to your normal 3000 kcal non-ketogenic maintenance diet or to your current style of dieting? Or simply a straight Atkins phase one? It's hard to really comment one way or another without knowing what's being added to. > My definition of "metabolically resistent" comes from Atkins's > definition of it. I've lost some weight on a 2000-calory high-carb, > low-fat diet, I've lost weight every time I've controlled my calory > intake, and I tend to maintain my weight on a non-ketogenic diet about > 3000 calories per day. Hrm. So, fat fast and challenge and expand from there. I guess it doesn't really matter what the start point is, as long as it's flowing towards better understanding of your tolerances. > It's binge periods that seem to cause me to gain weight, not > nutritional difficulties. So, again, the core issue. It's ultimately about a behavioral issue (binge eating) which may be driven by psychology or biology (as if they're seperate). Ultimately, the success or failure of your approach is going to lie in your ability to eat in the real world (not the cheese brick, sick making eggs, laxative and fake sugar kids beverage (yes, that's a dig at the smiley pitcher man) world, without bingeing. And you're going to win or lose on your ability to understand and control whatever it is that motivates you to binge. Good luck. That's probably going to be a lot harder than gagging down "dogshit." (Your word, not mine). > > Typical. I have a wife. I lift for health. I like to lift. I like it more than > > dreadmill. I don't hate the dreadmill. But lifting is fun. Maybe because [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The lifting thing WOULD piss you off. Eh, what can you do. Either resistance or aerobics works better than neither. Both works better than either. The best fat loss ever in my life was in Navy boot camp. During that time I ran 20-30 minutes every evening and marched several miles. Some resistance training in the form of calistenics but small compared to the aerobic. Anyone who ever claims that aerobics can't change body shape has never been to boot camp. But it shouldn't be hard to find an equivalent story of someone who has lost best with weight lifting. Either works, both works better. > On the subject of limiting/limited and expanded viewpoints and book > recommendations...what should I tell you? _The Structure of Scientific > Revolutions_ is a damn good book and not as boring as most academic > texts or historical analyses. But what concepts to learn from the Atkins revolution? "If low carb is good, then lower carb must be better" may be tempting but it is false on any time scale greater than about two weeks (funny how Induction is two weeks). Do not confuse your insistance that staying near zero carbs is what helps. It's your playing with fat to protein ratios. Assorted concepts from Atkins: 1) A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, and calories in calories out, are both approximations that work well in between low fat and low carb and they both have reality in any ratio range, but fat movement is driven as much by hormone control as it is by fuel useage. And basal metabolism is far more varied than most think. 2) Carbs are a tool to acheive loss not an enemy, and ketosis (actually ketonuria) is the lever arm for fat withdrawal. This is the CCLL concept. 3) Custom plans work better than one size fits all. Again the CCLL concept. 4) Food intolerances often cause addictive behavior patterns so do eliminate and challenge to know what to avoid. 5) ... And a few other similar concepts that most ignore. > One thing at least that does pertain to the discussion at > hand...adding additional protein/fat calories and no carbs in the form > of meat to the Induction form of Atkins dieting CAN cause me to gain > weight over the course of 2 weeks, but nothing more than 4.4 pounds or > 2 kilos in my experience. Correction. Water not fat. > My definition of "metabolically resistent" comes from Atkins's > definition of it. I've lost some weight on a 2000-calory high-carb, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's binge periods that seem to cause me to gain weight, not > nutritional difficulties. > > > Typical. I have a wife. I lift for health. I like to lift. I like it more than > > > dreadmill. I don't hate the dreadmill. But lifting is fun. Maybe because [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to find an equivalent story of someone who has lost best with weight > lifting. Either works, both works better. http://thefitnessinsider.menshealth.com/2007/10/the-secret-to-b.html This post cites study work by Jeff Volek and crew, forthcoming, on this very subject. The exercise doesn't really make a difference to weight loss (at least in this study). In fact, the cardio people lost the least. The difference comes in fat loss vs weight loss. The combination of diet + cardio + resistance is the champ in terms of dropping the fat pounds. Would have been interesting if they'd had a diet + resistance group, but perhaps in a subsequent study. > Correction. Water not fat. Hrm. We can assume with a high degree of accuracy that this is so. We haven't measured him. So Eric, how are you doing? V > My husband and teenage son don't have a weight problem and they aren't > diabetic -- but they eat this way, too. None of feel "deprived." I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a matter of fact, I gained most of my weight when I was pregnant with > my son, and the rest of it while I was driving a truck. I used to drive also! And hubby still does. Whatdoyaknow! I used to carry lowcarb tortillas to rewrap sandwiches on the road so could buy at nearly any fast food type joint if needul. But I mostly hit Walmarts, usually near the interstate and parking available, and bought whole rotisserie chickens, salad ingredients, cottage cheese and yogurt. Lived on that stuff when I drove. Plus gobs of coffee, of course. My hubby isn't diabetic either - I send him off with salad, a few frozen meals he reheats in those "lunchbox" heaters, and home-canned soups like ham and split pea, baked beans, etc. I also send lots of canned fruit, dried fruit and juice, nuts and nut butters, lunch meats and cheese. He only eats junk on the road if he chooses cause the truck is loaded with good stuff. Still, he also looks forward to coming home to "real food," which is all low-carb stuff cause that's mostly what gets cooked around here. For instance, we had a crockpot beef stew last time he was home and the morning before he left, I did a tomato & cheddar omelet. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > THE FIRST DAY > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else > see anything else that could kill me? I don't know, but I have to say I enjoy my bacon and egg for brekky and steak and salad for dinner:) > I intend to eat eight ounces of cheese every day, along with a multi- > vitamin and 23 grams of additional protein from a wonderfully cheap [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else > see anything else that could kill me? If you really want to do a PSMF, I suggest Lyle McDonald's book on the topic. He knows a heck of a lot more about biochemistry than most diet authors out there. While he points out that a PSMF isn't the healthiest choice, he does discuss how to do it as healthily as possible. Sort of like giving clean syringes to drug addicts. ;) You're probably not getting enough protein here cause your body needs more without carbs, as it converts protein to glucose in the absence of dietary carb. The pysllium isn't providing glucose cause our bodies don't break that type of fiber down. So your protein is probably low, but Lyle's book witll address that for you. Also, while the diet isn't as low in fat as it could be if you're really wanting to cut the calories to the bone, you need to be eating the essential fatty acids rather than just piles of cheese. You'd be a lot better off with tuna than with cheese, less calories and more of the essential fatty acids that you need. But at least add some fish oil tablets to the diet. Lyle's book is here: http://rapidfatloss.lylemcdonald.com/ And you're still going to have to figure out something to do about maintenance as this is absolutely a short-term diet for maximizing fat loss, not a way of eating for life. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > Yes, this diet composition is essentially a low-carbohydrate, protein- > sparing fast. I'm worried about potassium amounts and am going out > today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else > see anything else that could kill me? Lite Salt is the cheapest way to supplement potassium. If I were doing your diet (I'd be more likely to be doing Lyle's though), I'd seriously add a multivitamin and some fish oil also. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > THE FIRST DAY > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else > see anything else that could kill me? Why do you think you need to do this for weigh loss? Why not just control your carb intake which will lower your appetite, and start an regular execise program built around walking at first, weight lifting later, and then some stationary biking? >"Eric" <Eric.Blackway@gmail.com> wrote in message >> I'll swill all the Kool-Aid I can handle, sweetened with Splenda, >> which means less than 1 gram of carbohydrates per half-gallon. What kind of Splenda are you using that will only give you 1 gram of carb per half gallon? Are you only using one packet? Cheri > >"Eric" <Eric.Black...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> I'll swill all the Kool-Aid I can handle, sweetened with Splenda, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cheri Yes, I do use one packet. The product is called Splenda Quick Pack, and one packet of it equals a cup of sugar. The whole packet weights 4 grams. The product code is 2277620051. But thank you for making me look at the label again. The nutrition information is for a serving, which is 1/40th of the packet, states that it contains less than 1 gram of total carbyhydrates, so I can't be absolutely sure that I'm getting less than 4 total grams of carbyhydrates per packet. I may have to take FOB's advice and cut it out completely. > But thank you for making me look at the label again. The nutrition > information is for a serving, which is 1/40th of the packet, states > that it contains less than 1 gram of total carbyhydrates, so I can't > be absolutely sure that I'm getting less than 4 total grams of > carbyhydrates per packet. I may have to take FOB's advice and cut it > out completely. Sucralsoe forbids anyone to resell the stuff (except as an ingredient in products) as it doesn't want it's licensees to compete with it - and they don't sell a product without buling agents. You can buy a liquid form of sucralose with no carbs at all here: http://www.sweetzfree.com/ - but she has limited amounts and only sells at certain times and only takes Paypal. You can get a sucralose-sweetened "fiber supplement" with no net carbs from netrition here: http://www26.netrition.com/nutragenics_fiberfit_page.html Stevia comes in packages without bulking agents added or in liquid form also; it's mostly what I use myself as I can pick it up at my grocery store. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ The "calory is a calory" mindset. Doug, you may have a point, and so may Atkins, but in my experience both following up Atkins citations to Keckwick and Pawan articles in musty old volumes of medical journals and within the laboratory of my own body, Atkins has indeed been proven right in the past and you haven't. That's one thing that I have to say about Atkins. Despite what I consider to be his dismissive attitudes regarding the psychosomatic aspects of hunger management, if you can find the journals, he doesn't lie and prevaricate when he quotes research. At the time I checked out his work, I had access to an international medical library with back issues of primary journals going back 50 years, not even microfilm copies. When I checked out all the comments made in my little yaller book, there was just one that I couldn't find, on page 68, Pilkington's dismissive conclusion in Lancet. And finally, in the long term, any approach leads to failure 95% of the time, according to every study I've heard tell of. If that was all that was stopping me, I would have laid down and died long ago. It's only served to convince me that conventional wisdom is dead wrong, perhaps only when it comes to me, perhaps when it comes to everyone. Yes, those participate in these studies in programs that allow them to lose weight and build up exercise programs gradually tend to keep it off better than those who don't. Even in those cases, unless I misremember, the differences between success rates are something like 99% failure for fast-lowers and 92% failure for slow-losers. Hardly the glowing recommendation. I've got dial-up and I write these posts off-line, so forgive me for not googling that. I also believe there are alternative explanation for the reasons why these success stories exist, but let's not get into that today. ------------------------------- In the category of too unbelievable to be fiction, can you believe that during the Korean War, the Army used to recruit doctors in the New England Journal of Medicine with promises that they would have free access to golf course at their bases abroad? --------------------------------- I've also lost a pound a day on a strict, high-carb Pritikin program, 600 calories a day netted me 90 pounds in about 100 days, but a diet like that cannibalizes your muscle tissue like nobody's business, does not suppress your appetite at all, and once your attention wavers just a touch, you could end up like me back then, a 17-year-old male bulimic, binging and purging to try to keep the weight off. When I started weight-lifing in my senior year of high school, I was already 6'2" but I was ridiculously flabby all over, and it was difficult to bench-press 100 pounds. Since back in those days I walked three miles every day, my legs had adapted and I could still squat a reasonable amount, but 100 pounds, for a 17-year-old, especially a larger kind of guy like me, is ridiculous. On the whole, bulimia was not all that bad an experience and not at all a scary one (I never have to deal with that "want to puke but can't feeling") but it's a fundamentally unsound place to be in your head. In my view, it makes you take on a certain idea of your body that's hard to get rid of, which does indeed turn you into a conceited piece of sh.t. Years later, on my first trip through a mental hospital, the fact that I found it easy to talk about my experience shocked the group therapist. At the time, I was 22 and weighed about 220, and much of the group was made up of habitual substance abusers (the norm in a mental hospital) and a handful of depressive anorexics. I felt stupid even feeling remotely ashamed surrounded by these poor women. It took one trip to the school counselor, just one admission to another human being, and I was in reverse away from a bad place, lucky me. It turned these poor women into frightening caricatures of humanity. It was individual therapy that brought me face to face with my money problem, the fact that I was raised poor and that has really created a series of dysfunctional spending habits in me. And it was therapy with a guy who didn't have a PhD, who just kept talking to me until the time came when he forced me to look straight on at my problems, at my ballooning debt and health-care costs, at the options available to me, at the built-up anxiety so terrible that I couldn't face it. This group is very much already helping me in that way. Even the occasional snide and the very few ignorant comments go a long way: by upping my determination to prove them wrong. Some of you have extremely good suggestions, and by reading and contributing to this thread, you've already offered me something new, a forum where I get to connect with people who know something about my problem, where talk can just happen. -------------------------------- I'm glad finally someone asked about exercise. I run for half-an-hour every day. There is absolutely nothing like running to take fat off, from what a Navy doc once explained to me, the continued jarring impacts just beat hell out of your flab and force dissolving fat tissue to aerate. When it's time, I'll get back to judo, which I started doing years ago overseas but had to quit when my schedule went to hell. For now, anxious not to make the odd neighborhood I live in talk (I live in what I would call a suburban residential townhouse condominum complex with primarily retirees and yuppies for neighbors, but more about that some other time), I go down to my basement with a hand-held lap counter and jog back and forth through the rooms until my timer beeps. I had to build up to it by walking 10,000 steps a day for a while, but I like running, even though the kind of running I'm detailing is not all that fun, unlike running a consistent route through a large park as the seasons change, which, as you build that good habit, can truly become one of life's finest pleasures. Again, I got into running overseas, just after I turned down the Navy. If you had told me when I was fifteen that I would someday enjoy running, the overweight teenager that I was could have spent weeks patiently trying to convince you that it would be impossible. --------------------------------------- Jackie, once again you have handed me exactly what I need to know. Thank you. ---------------------------------------- Roger, I don't agree with you that cutting back on carbs will control appetite for me. It cures the worst of the hunger pangs, but for me, given my open mental issues concerning food, and I suspect for quite a few dieters, few of us actually eat as much as we do simply for the biochemical reasons Atkins would like us to believe. But it's going to take some time and thinking to properly present my argument for that, so I'll save that for another day. > I'm glad finally someone asked about exercise. I run for half-an-hour > every day. There is absolutely nothing like running to take fat off, > from what a Navy doc once explained to me, the continued jarring > impacts just beat hell out of your flab and force dissolving fat > tissue to aerate. That's an interesting theory. Remember those things that were popular a few decades ago, where you stood inside this wide belt and leaned back, and then it shook the crap out of you? I think they were before my time, but I've seen pictures. Seems like they were based on the same principle, but I thought it turned out to be bogus. SignatureAaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz > > I'm glad finally someone asked about exercise. I run for half-an-hour > > every day. There is absolutely nothing like running to take fat off, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz Nope. Massage and sauna treatments as part of weight loss are still alive and well, just not part of the American way. But that aside, running does miracles. Good evening, folks. Morning weigh-in results 12 hours ago: 270.2, 39.5% fat, 45.5% water The initial, sudden drop in weight is thankfully over. 13 pounds went in 4 days. You may recall, when I started this thread 4 days ago, I was 283. If past experience is any guide to go on, and the succession of scales that I have had over the years could lay any claim to accuracy, they way it will probably work from now on is a 2-pound/1- kilo loss every second day, with no change or an increase in between. It's like clockwork, every 48 hours. There have been less than five departures from that general pattern on any strict diet when I'm not 20 pounds away from my target weight. One more point, I've stopped the laxatives because my body has finally settled down. That's six grams of carbohydrates off the top, for a new round total of 12 per day (4 large eggs have 4 grams). Today was a hard one. I hung on, but I really didn't feel up to dealing with the brand-new snide comments I was sure were lurking for me here in the group. If you've been reading this thread, I'm sure you know what I mean. I would have been short and publicly rude, and that generally helps nothing and no one. I have to warn everyone that I'll probably log on one day, come upon a real piece of sh.t's shitty comment, and just let go, so once again, if the stories of bulimia and mental hospitals have not already convinced you that this is not suitable reading for your children, THIS IS AN UNRATED THREAD. One good thing is that I have started a detailed analysis of how Atkins presents the idea of appetite suppression in low-carb dieting in _New Diet Revolution_ to more clearly illustrate what I mean about how the psychosomatic elements of appetite are studiously overlooked and minimized in the book. The hunger I feel right now is debilitating to the point of making that difficult, but I'm on it. And before the next know-it-all else posts the "fat suppresses appetite" argument, and mentions that in my stated diet to date (once again, 4 eggs (thanks, Jackie) and 8 oz of cheese per diem, plus plenty of artificially-sweetened Kool-Aid) I'm eating more protein and less fat than Atkins details in his Fat Fast diet, well in the past, I have indeed done a full-on, 1000-calorie 10-gram carbyhydrate Fat Fast. I used artificially-sweetened whipped cream back then. I did not stay on that diet longer than 5 days, carefully following Atkins's advice, and leery of protein loss. The bad news is that I was just about as hungry back then, too. Those were really Frankenstein cravings, though. It wasn't just hunger...I could lie with my eyes closed and see food, any kind of food, dancing in the dark. I don't know if I've already posted it and you've already read it (sorry, it has indeed been a trying day) but I know what it's like to lose a lot of muscle tissue when dieting. When I was 17, I did a strict Pritikin plan diet: 600 calories daily for a weight loss of about 80 pounds at about a pound a day, less a few days of backsliding. I could barely bench-press 100 pounds after that, when I started weightlifting to regain some of that muscle tissue. I remember that everyone kept on commenting on how skinny my forearms were, while there was still a layer of soft fat (albeit much thinner) around my midsection. Anyway, I'll post tomorrow, and once again, even to the snide, thanks for reading and writing. Today, however, was a lousy bad day and I didn't feel up to dealing with you. Tomorrow, I'll read everything and attempt to prepare coherent responses. So, if someone has posted something that they want a response to, this is not it -- sorry. Don't worry about children reading this, it's way too boring for them. | Good evening, folks. Morning weigh-in results 12 hours ago: | [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] | So, if someone has posted something that they want a response to, this | is not it -- sorry. > Don't worry about children reading this, it's way too boring for them. Great. But half the group seems to be convinced that I'm killing myself through cheese and Kool-Aid, some misled indiivdual put a rating on this thread, and even without whistling up some sharks and The Black Pearl I'm a bit worried that some kid as desperate to lose weight as I was might read this. >> Don't worry about children reading this, it's way too boring for them. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whistling up some sharks and The Black Pearl I'm a bit worried that > some kid as desperate to lose weight as I was might read this. This is Usenet; threads are not rated. If Google Groups or some other forum you're accessing through is rating it, that's just their silly interface; most Usenet interfaces don't have ratings anyways. Kids looking for something naughty are hardly gonna pick alt.support.diet.low-carb as their newsgroup of choice. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > Great. But half the group seems to be convinced that I'm killing > myself through cheese and Kool-Aid, BTW, it doesn't matter *what* you do; someone is gonna criticize. I got flamed a while back on another group for saying I quit Diet Pepsi and started drinking stevia-sweetened lemonade and limeade. Apparently, I didn't "need" the 2g of carb per serving and stevia is some sort of poison that is gonna kill me. When you post, you open your life to scrutiny and someone is always gonna disagree; either develop a thicker skin or you aren't gonna like Usenet much. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ Eric, you've set your goals and you're sticking to them. That's great. Keep up the good work. -- Mike > Eric, you've set your goals and you're sticking to them. That's great. Keep > up the good work. -- Mike Thank you. I'm sitting up tonight, as has been all too usual lately (not for any reason related to the diet), and just thinking about the overwhelming certainty that so many of you have that I will be unable to maintain this diet for long. It's actually beginning to bother me, which I was hoping it would. I understand how well-grounded every comment being made about my being able to SUSTAIN the weight loss is. I completely agree with you, and as I get down nearer my goal, I'll start working on that, hopefully with all of your help. I really don't think simple carbyhydrate restriction will work for maintenance, for reasons I've detailed elsewhere or will detail later. No, I am damned certain that it will involve building, step by step, a series of good dietary habits for life. That's part of why this diet is as boring as it is. It's not mortification of the flesh -- it's behavioral modification. But we'll get into psychology later. God knows there's time. Where do you people get your staunch certainties that I will never be able to sustain this austere diet for long? That no one can, and that it lies outside the realm of human endeavor, is the general sense of what I've been reading. Sometimes, when I'm not feeling too strong, I'm halfway to agreeing with you, but in the past, occasionally on even more austere diets than this one, I've lost plenty of weight. So every time one of you tells me that no one can lose a pound a day for months at a time, no way, no how, it's a compliment, even if I don't make it this time. It doesn't really mean much, you know. One way or the other, my personal struggle with my weight will not be fully decided until I'm dead and buried, and neither will yours. So I'll just keep on posting my numbers for the next seventy pounds or so, and focus almost all my concentration on this one task at hand. All of you should feel free to tell me that I'll never make it happen, but I'll just keep on posting my numbers. If I run into serious health problems, I'll stop the diet and tell you, but until then, expect to see those numbers. If I can't keep it up, I'll probably just slink away and post no more, and you can all agree that you were right. If I backslide even once, I'll probably stop too. In the meantime, though, those numbers are going up. > I'm sitting up tonight, as has been all too usual lately (not for any > reason related to the diet), and just thinking about the overwhelming > certainty that so many of you have that I will be unable to maintain > this diet for long. Hi Eric, I hear a lot of self pity in your post. Hey, you've mapped out a plan that you think is best for you. It doesn't matter whether I like the plan or not. Short-term, you're probably way better off than you would be if you kept the weight on. Long-term, you may (or may not) decide to switch your diet around a bit, add some veggies and beef maybe. That's me, though, and that's what I like to eat. > If I backslide even once, I'll probably > stop too. Bullshit. If you're going to get through this, you have to accept the fact that being perfect is impossible. Failure isn't falling down, its staying down. Big diff! Mike > Hi Eric, > > I hear a lot of self pity in your post. Well, I don't really feel that way, but thank you for your concern. > > If I backslide even once, I'll probably > > stop too. > > Bullshit. If you're going to get through this, you have to accept the fact > that being perfect is impossible. Failure isn't falling down, its staying > down. Big diff! I completely agree with you. Let's wait till I backslide and we'll see what happens then. >Where do you people get your staunch certainties that I will never be >able to sustain this austere diet for long? That no one can, and that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >tells me that no one can lose a pound a day for months at a time, no >way, no how, it's a compliment, even if I don't make it this time. Because a lot of us have "been there, done that" on virtually every diet out there. In the mid 90s, I went to the gym every weekday morning for about 10 months. My workouts were 30-40 mins of cardio, and then weights. I drank a protein shake for breakfast, another for lunch, and ate a "sensible" dinner. In those 10 months, I lost approximately 30 lbs. of fat and my BMI was about 19. However, I injured my leg at the gym. I lost the motivation to start back after it healed. I started eating crap again and gained back way more weight than the amount I lost. I've got 3 other examples where I lost significant (40+ lbs) amounts of weight in my life on different diets. But I always gained it back. It appears that you too have crash dieted in the past and then reverted back to your previous lifestyle and gained it back. Now you are trying to do the same crash diet thing again. It doesn't work for the long haul. A diet is only successful if you can stay on it and not regain the weight that was lost. Or in my case, to reverse a medical condition that could shorten my life. My motivation this time is totally different. My glucose level had been rising over the years and in August the doctor started talking about Type 2 diabetes and putting me on medication. I did some reading and study and started LCing. I didn't do the Atkins induction phase, I eat vegetables and salads and lots of meat and cheese. I've lost over 35 lbs in a little over 3 months. My glucose level has dropped to normal levels and my doctor is no longer talking about diabetes for me. Unlike you, I can't allow myself to say "if I don't make it this time." This is something I have to do to give myself the best shot at living a full life. With this LC diet I've lost weight. But more importantly, my glucose, trygliceride level, my blood pressure have all dropped into the normal ranges. I simply can't change the way I'm eating now. My life depends on it. I wish you the best. Mark > In article <1195033454.486847.206...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Eric says... > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Mark And thank you for your courteous and informative input. > In article <1195033454.486847.206...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Eric says... > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > it and not regain the weight that was lost. Or in my case, to reverse a medical > condition that could shorten my life. > My motivation this time is totally different. My glucose level had been rising > over the years and in August the doctor started talking about Type 2 diabetes > and putting me on medication. I knew I simply had to say something about this a little more important than a discussion on crash dieting. Mark, I have understood for quite some time that I am going to end up half-blind, crippled, raving in my bed at times, and dying many years before my time if I do not make serious changes in my life. That's exactly what happened to my father. > I did some reading and study and started LCing. I didn't do the Atkins induction > phase, I eat vegetables and salads and lots of meat and cheese. I've lost over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unlike you, I can't allow myself to say "if I don't make it this time." This is > something I have to do to give myself the best shot at living a full life. Yes, you do. And the motivation you have is of a different stripe than that for others. In twenty-five years under the creeping malignancy of diabetes, my father could never get it all off. In many ways I still blame him for it. My dad is the prime example I have of the power of the mind to change a person. When I was younger, he was cruel, deeply ungenerous, and the most pompous PhD you've ever met. The disease ravaged his body, but his spirit soared. Near the end, he had become the kindest, most gracious man in everyday thought and action you could imagine. Yet all through his personal transformation, as I watched him step above the things that I cannot forget as a child, patiently prising off self-destructive shackles of conventional thought and the immense bigotry of a European who took decades to accept and then embrace the radical American conception of egality, one thing continued to shame him. Food. The pattern never wavered and the binges never changed. All dignity aside, you could still find him at sixty sneaking something out of the fridge, enduring the scolding of my mother in shameful silence as she discovered half the next day's meal was already gone and making excuses for his inability to hold himself back. The food demon killed him. It gutted him and threw him aside, gloated over his deathbed and danced as we lowered him in the family tomb. It made a mockery of his achievements and a fool of his memory. Mike, I'm well aware that this diet is not the end, but the beginning of the long haul. I have to change everything, because if I don't, I will end up with the grim motivation you do. This is my first step, and the end of the trip is when I go, hopefully later rather than sooner. About my maintenance diet: although I don't want to think about it too much right now, I will never eat highly-refined carbohydrates on a sustained basis again, I will always control my general carbohydrate intake, and my eating habits are never going to be the same after this experience, one way or the other. > With this LC diet I've lost weight. But more importantly, my glucose, > trygliceride level, my blood pressure have all dropped into the normal ranges. > > I simply can't change the way I'm eating now. My life depends on it. > I wish you the best. > > Mark And I wish you the best too. Good Lord, I wish you the best. Dear regulars, It's going to take me some time to respond to all of your comments, and I will most definitely fall behind, since I'm just one guy sitting here typing away. Doug, you're next on my list. The discussion may go on in new directions and open up new vistas of precisely why there's no way on God's green earth that what I'm doing could in any way be linked to what anyone else should be doing, and I can understand that. In no way do I believe that I am leading the way in diet research and practice. So I'd plod behind you in my responses. November 17,2007 Today the scale held steady. 267.4 / 37.5% Fat / 46.0% Water Day 2 with very little loss: 270.0, 40.0% fat, 45.0% water. I am quite relieved. Now let's take a look at what happened today. And one last thank you to everyone: some of the stuff here has been exceptionally important and I will pay close attention to it. This is not lip service but a promise, and I appreciate the time, effort,and courtesy that went into writing these posts. > Today was a hard one. I hung on, but I really didn't feel up to > dealing with the brand-new snide comments I was sure were lurking for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mental hospitals have not already convinced you that this is not > suitable reading for your children, THIS IS AN UNRATED THREAD. That's a very nice strawman; hope it takes the blue ribbon at the arts and crafts contest! No one's offended by your tales of woe; if you had looked through the archives of this group before posting, you'd have seen that many people have opened up about their personal trials. I suspect that's somewhat in the nature of a group with 'support' in the name. Here's why you've gotten the responses you've gotten. First, you come in here with a visible chip on your shoulder, warning us up front that for some reason we're not going to be able to handle the rap you'll be putting down. Next time you're at a party, give that a try: instead of walking up to people and saying hi, just walk around repeating in a loud voice, "Warning: If you talk to me, it will get unpleasant!" You'll be very popular. Second, you describe an unusual cheese/laxative diet you've already designed that seems to be a balancing act between constipation and the squirts, claim that has something to do with Atkins, and then say part of your motivation is that standard low-carb is too expensive, even though cheese is certainly not cheap. Then you act hurt when people tell you you're full of crap. Sorry, but we're not your high school guidance counselor; we're not going to pat you on the back and say "good job" when you're full of crap. We're going to correct notions that are dead wrong, offer new ideas, and wish you the best. That's real support. Don't take it personally; we all had to relearn this stuff after being raised in the anti-fat world, and we're all still learning. I've been told I was full of crap more than once here, and I didn't cry too much. Stick around, settle down a little, lower your dukes, and enjoy. SignatureAaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz > That's a very nice strawman; hope it takes the blue ribbon at the arts > and crafts contest! No one's offended by your tales of woe; if you had > looked through the archives of this group before posting, you'd have > seen that many people have opened up about their personal trials. I > suspect that's somewhat in the nature of a group with 'support' in the > name. Aaron, I'm not trying to offend anyone. Once again, I'm trying something radical that could honestly do significant damage. There is a chance if I had not spotted the potassium lack early on, something weird would have happened. There may still be other vitamin supplementations I may have forgotten. Now, when I was seventeen, I was willing to do anything to lose weight, and I starved myself down to my target weight with no vitamin supplementation, and ended up binging and purging down my basement steps for months. We haven't even gotten into the trips to the mental hospital yet and the relationship between psychotropic medications and weight loss. There are other aspects of my life that are part of this story. There's even some stuff that I don't dare to talk about at all, no matter how many layers of aliases stand between Eric Blackway and my actual identity. From what I understand, this diet is nowhere near as dangerous as the one I was on when I was seventeen. I could be wrong. And the thought of some seventeen year old scanning posts and looking for something radically different could try this one and end up on a decades-long rollercoaster is a bit worrisome. I'm probably a bit more sensitive about what should and what shouldn't be said to kids and how than most people, but that's where this is coming from. I think that's half the reason I've gotten as many negative posts as I have, and I couldn't agree with the idea more. Yes, I am perfectly willing to try something strange on myself. I don't want anyone else to do something stupid to themselves. > Here's why you've gotten the responses you've gotten. First, you come in > here with a visible chip on your shoulder, warning us up front that for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > voice, "Warning: If you talk to me, it will get unpleasant!" You'll be > very popular. My primary goal here is not to be popular. I have plenty of friends elsewhere. This is not a party, and trust me, my participation in this thread is not entertaining for me. There is work going on here. And finally, I'm not forcing anyone to read my posts or write in response. > Second, you describe an unusual cheese/laxative diet you've already > designed that seems to be a balancing act between constipation and the > squirts, claim that has something to do with Atkins, and then say part > of your motivation is that standard low-carb is too expensive, even > though cheese is certainly not cheap. Then you act hurt when people > tell you you're full of crap. Well, I am not trying to act hurt, and I don't think I'm full of crap, despite my "balancing act between constipation and the squirts." I'm working hard to control my temper. I realize that I'm responding unusually according to Usenet standards by metaphorically taking it on the chin and trying to be reasonable in response instead of squabbling. Some have taken that to mean that I must be a Usenet newbie. Unfortunately, I have a long history of responding to and both winning and losing flamewars behind me in other groups that do not have "support" in their names. WIth experience, I've learned that no one who actually wants to participate in a group ever really wins a flamewar, and I'm trying to head one of diplomatically. > Sorry, but we're not your high school guidance counselor; we're not > going to pat you on the back and say "good job" when you're full of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz My dukes are very low, thankfully, and I'm doing my best to keep them that way. After all, you've mentioned that you feel that I'm "full of crap" twice, and the top fifty posters of this group have not received a personal email from someone with your username detailing...whatever it is I want to make up. There are not fifteen people in the group with the username "Aaron Baugher" and a .biz address each louldy proclaiming that the posts the other fourteen wrote are a miserable lie. There is no guy under a randomized address named "Uraszmyn" or something like that cross-posting different lies about you to every group you've ever posted in. And finally, I have made no attempts to find you and mess with your life off-line, like writing e-mails your bosses' children six times a day and telling them that Aaron Baugher is about to kill their parents. These things have happened in other groups I have participated in, and although I have never been involved in anything illegal, that's where a flamewar gets you when you have really computer-savvy and vicious people involved. You'll notice in this thread that I have never claimed to be a nice guy, but because I don't respond in the most effective way I know now, everyone seems to have assumed that I don't know how the flamewar game is played no-holds-barred-just-stay-out-of- prison. Instead, I have explained that I am indeed a certified lunatic and detailed multiple trips to the mental hospital. In the final analysis, I'm just posting in a single thread in a single group. It was my intention to post no matter what the nature of the responses I got. If I get no responses, I'm still going to post. If I get far more hostile responses, I'm still going to post. But why is it so difficult for expressions like "full of crap" not to find their way into these responses? Would you say that to my face, or maybe on the street? Of course not, except maybe in a moment of poor judgment, because you don't know me from Adam. I hope I've cleared up some of your misconceptions now, and allow me to end with a plea: Can't we all just get along? Regular Splenda in a box or bag is 16 carbs/cup. | Yes, I do use one packet. The product is called Splenda Quick Pack, | and one packet of it equals a cup of sugar. The whole packet weights 4 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | carbyhydrates per packet. I may have to take FOB's advice and cut it | out completely. Eric wrote in message <1194901934.407015.72900@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>... >Yes, I do use one packet. The product is called Splenda Quick Pack, >and one packet of it equals a cup of sugar. The whole packet weights 4 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >carbyhydrates per packet. I may have to take FOB's advice and cut it >out completely. I know I'm missing something here, but if the nutrition info per serving is 1/40th of the packet, and assuming less than 1 gram per serving, probably pretty close to a gram though, where do you even come close to less than 4 total grams in the packet? Cheri > Eric wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Cheri Well, I feel better now, so here goes. The whole packet weighs four grams. If the product were pure glucose, I couldn't be getting more than four grams. Hi Eric, Just like everyone else, when I started "dieting", I just wanted to lose the weight right away and be done with it. Of course, that doesn't just happen, not for anybody I know and certainly not for me. Anyway, though, I started out all gung-ho and the weight started coming off, slowly but surely. Not quickly, but at least I could see the progress. After a while I had to accept that it was going to take me a long time to lose the weight. I've backslid a few times, too. Hey, it happens, and I do manage to get back on-track without causing any serious damage. So, where I'm at now is that I'm trying to create a healthy lifestyle for myself. Not a "diet plan and exercise chart", but a way of life. I have certain foods that I eat every day, like veggies and meat; some food that I eat a lot of days, like eggs, melons and berries; and some foods that I eat just once or twice a week because otherwise they will screw me up, like dairy products and nuts. (I tend to go overboard on those kinds of things, so I really have to watch myself.) I don't a lot of counting, though. I know which foods fit within my eating plan and I mostly eyeball portion sizes (I do weigh things out sometimes). I know that ten or twelve oz of melon is like twenty-plus carbs, so on days when I eat melons I don't do dairy or nuts, and I may have something like a couple cups leafy veggies like cole slaw or lettuce. Other days I'll have things like green beans, snow peas, broccoli, carrots... I consider these kinds of things "medium carb". I'm not too much into salad dressings and the like, my diet is plain and simple. I'm starting to ramble! Anyway, the point is that for me, and for pretty much everyone I think, once you're past the denial/anger/bargaining/etc., you have to settle down with a long-term lifestyle plan that will allow you to lose weight until you hit your goal, and then maintain your weight where you want it to be rather so that you don't yo-yo. That's my 1 1/2 cents, anyway. Keep posting, guy. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we all look forward to seeing you succeed. Mike > Anyway, the point is that for me, and for pretty > much everyone I think, once you're past the denial/anger/bargaining/etc., [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mike Mike, I really appreciate the facts that you spend no time trying to bandy words with me like a child, make your point clearly and with no smug insinuations that I'm a simpleton, and, in general, when I read your posts I get the sense that I'm reading the words of someone who's comfortable in his own skin and with his own achievements in life. It's a relief. Thanks for bringing me back to why I'm here in the group. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I completely agree with you: this is all about putting together a long- term lifestyle. This ridiculous, tasteless diet that I'm on, as I see it, is the first stage of that. I want to take away my compulsive binge-eating, and so I have to think about calories. I have terrible eating habits, and so I have to establish new ones slowly. I enjoy food in general far too much, and so I need to take a break from that. And, of course, I've got to lose this weight without being made of money. If it were that simple, people, I'd hire a chef and a fitness coach, quit my job, and I'd be peachy keen. But under the circumstances detailed, I am determined to embark on a course of rigorous behavioral modification. If I could feed myself with an intravenous drip, I might even try that. One of the things that I've learned in the things that I've managed to do is that when it comes to making serious, permanent changes in your lifestyle, you have to be willing to destroy old habits in yourself in order to begin building new ones -- you have to create time to focus on the biggest problem first and take things in step without allowing them to overwhelm you. And so now we get to WHY I think I need that instead of allowing the carbohydrate-restriction = appetite-restriction equation to work naturally, as it seems to do well in other people. This is really difficult, but this is a real opportunity for me to strip it down now and spit it out through my teeth. This is wild...can you believe it took me 30 minutes to write the previous sentence? I think it's psychotropic medication. It may be true that a regular Atkins induction diet and OWL plan could have worked for me before I was stuffed full of pills and shot up to the moon, but I'm not sure it's true now. Whew! Finally, I suspect carbohydrate-restriction does not equal fully- successful appetite restriction in quite a number of people who don't have my particular problem, that Atkins and anyone else who makes the claim that it really is that simple is playing on our insecurity to sell us a bucket of sh.t and get the bucket back. Mike, thanks again. "Eric" <Eric.Blackway@gmail.com> say'd > One of the things > that I've learned in the things that I've managed to do is that when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > problem first and take things in step without allowing them to > overwhelm you. Words of wisdom, for sure! Everyone has to figure out what works for them. If your plan works, great. I believe that it will. If not, for any reason, I'm sure you'll figure out why and what to do about it. Mike > Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to > do something real about it. Hi Eric and others in this group. I wish you all of the luck. I have found at my age (never ask a lady her age! :) ) and with my busy scheduke that I don't have a lot of time or will power for traditional diets. I have a blog that also hopes to offer tips to those trying to lose weight maybe you could join this blog as well? Check it out and add your thoughts and ideas as well http://letsburnfat.blogspot.com/ |
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.