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

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Bowel Movement regularity question

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Athleticman89 - 10 Dec 2003 22:27 GMT
I have successfully lost over 25 pounds on the Atkins diet, from 196
to 170.
I love it and intend to continue with this WOE.
Among the other things I've noticed while on this diet is that I dont'
go to the bathroom (BM) as often as I used to go. Sometimes I go for a
few days before I get the urge to have a bowel movement. I even take
Metamucil once a day in the evenings to help the process, but to no
avail. Will flax seed oil or something else help me become regular
again, or is it part of the program to extend the time between BM's? I
should also mention that I am an athlete and exercise about 1-2 hours
every day.
Any advise will be appreciated.
c - 10 Dec 2003 23:02 GMT
> I have successfully lost over 25 pounds on the Atkins diet, from 196
> to 170.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> every day.
> Any advise will be appreciated.

I think you'll find quite a few people who have had similar experiences. I
am one of them. More than likely there is nothing wrong with your digestive
system. I probably go about a 1/3 as often as I used to before low carb. As
long as you're not constipated and your waste is a normal color, I wouldn't
worry about it.

Chris
B-D_ - 11 Dec 2003 00:46 GMT
I have the same problems, but I don't give them much thought. When I
have to go I have to go and I go. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if 2 or
3 days pass in between. Less a.s wiping for me. ;)

Signature

B-D_
Atkins since 11/24/03
199/188/165

Jack Hatfield - 11 Dec 2003 02:55 GMT
Found wheat germ (low carb naturally) seems to work for this little problem!

> I have the same problems, but I don't give them much thought. When I
> have to go I have to go and I go. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if 2 or
> 3 days pass in between. Less a.s wiping for me. ;)
Reality Check - 11 Dec 2003 05:20 GMT
When I did the Atkins it used to bother me that I didn't go everyday let
alone for 4 days!  I didn't like the thought of food waste being in my
intestines for a while so I went off it as I wasn't losing much weight
anyways... by the way, I only have 10-15 lbs to lose so I just opted for
loads of exercise and low GI carb foods plus lots of protein and enough
unsaturated fats from fish oils.

> I have successfully lost over 25 pounds on the Atkins diet, from 196
> to 170.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> every day.
> Any advise will be appreciated.
Bob Peterson - 11 Dec 2003 12:20 GMT
Reality check is that BM are highly personal, and vary from individual to
individual.  I personally would be real worried if I did not have one on a
regular basis, as that would be unusual for me.  I do take flax seed oil
capsules (for other reasons), and generally eat at least one of the LC bars
every day with sugar alcohols in it,, along with 3 grams of Vit c.  All of
these things tend to make you go, but are ingested for other reasons.

> When I did the Atkins it used to bother me that I didn't go everyday let
> alone for 4 days!  I didn't like the thought of food waste being in my
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> > every day.
> > Any advise will be appreciated.
Ignoramus5005 - 11 Dec 2003 17:51 GMT
> When I did the Atkins it used to bother me that I didn't go everyday let
> alone for 4 days!  I didn't like the thought of food waste being in my
> intestines for a while so I went off it as I wasn't losing much weight
> anyways... by the way, I only have 10-15 lbs to lose so I just opted for
> loads of exercise and low GI carb foods plus lots of protein and enough
> unsaturated fats from fish oils.

Good common sense.

If your diet does not allow you to eat plenty of vegetables in
maintenance mode, it is a bad diet, period. Vegetables are good for
preventing cancer, and a myriad of other things. We were meant to eat
vegetables. Accidentally, even atkins diet follower can eat plenty of
vegetables. Tomatoes, cauliflower, peppers, cabbage etc.

i
Roger Zoul - 11 Dec 2003 20:38 GMT
:: In article <3fd7fe5b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Reality Check wrote:
::: When I did the Atkins it used to bother me that I didn't go
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
::
:: Good common sense.

Losing weight with "loads of exercise" is not good common sense if you can't
keep it up.

:: If your diet does not allow you to eat plenty of vegetables in
:: maintenance mode, it is a bad diet, period. Vegetables are good for
:: preventing cancer, and a myriad of other things. We were meant to eat
:: vegetables. Accidentally, even atkins diet follower can eat plenty of
:: vegetables. Tomatoes, cauliflower, peppers, cabbage etc.

Accidentally?  Come on, ig.
Ignoramus5005 - 11 Dec 2003 21:29 GMT
>:: In article <3fd7fe5b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Reality Check wrote:
>::: When I did the Atkins it used to bother me that I didn't go
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Losing weight with "loads of exercise" is not good common sense if you can't
> keep it up.

You omitted other parts of that weight loss program, plus, loads of
exercising can be continued into weight maintenance. I am 3 months
into maintenance and I keep up with substantial daily exercise.

I like living this way.

>:: If your diet does not allow you to eat plenty of vegetables in
>:: maintenance mode, it is a bad diet, period. Vegetables are good for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Accidentally?  Come on, ig.
Roger Zoul - 11 Dec 2003 23:56 GMT
:: In article <brakkb$1adhm$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
::
:: I like living this way.

I omitted nothing.  But "loads of exercise" for the purpose of losing weight
is not a good idea if you don't keep it up. Period. If you have to exercise
to maintain your weight, you're basically eating too much.  If, on the other
hand, you balance that exercise against things you eat that give extra
calories, and if you don't exercise you don't eat those extra calories, then
it can work. Probably a better plan for most is to occasionally diet if your
weight drifts up by 5 lbs.

All that has to happen for you is to lose your ability to walk 100 minutes a
day and you'll start to gain weight.  Hopefully, that won't happen.
Ignoramus5005 - 12 Dec 2003 04:44 GMT
>:: In article <brakkb$1adhm$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
>:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> is not a good idea if you don't keep it up. Period. If you have to exercise
> to maintain your weight, you're basically eating too much.  

This is the most bizarre thing I heard in a very long time.

I do loads of exercise for three reasons.

1. It makes me feel good and objectively healthier.
2. It allows me to eat more, which is easier psychologically
3. It keeps me focused on weight maintenance.

Exercise is essential for weight maintenance, it is essential for
staying healthy into old age, and also, people who exercise look
better and cuter than people who do not.

I know two 38 year old women. One looks like she is maybe 30-32. She
exercises every day. Another looks like she is 50, she does not
exercise and is fat. (I do realize that it is an isolated example that
you have no way of verifying and that there could be other reasons for
their disparity in looks)

> If, on the other hand, you balance that exercise against things you
> eat that give extra calories

of course

> , and if you don't exercise you don't
> eat those extra calories, then it can work. Probably a better plan
> for most is to occasionally diet if your weight drifts up by 5 lbs.

I suspect strongly that the second option is less sustainable in the
long run. Keeping steady weight is very helpful healthwise.

> All that has to happen for you is to lose your ability to walk 100 minutes a
> day and you'll start to gain weight.  Hopefully, that won't happen.

I would try to invent some other exercise, but yes, I am concerned
about the same thing. It is definitely a concern for me, which you
correctly pinpointed.

There is a lot of wisdom in the saying "eat less, exercise more".
I suspect that sedentary lifestyle is a much larger cause of obesity
than it is made to sound. The reason for such a distortion is that it
is easier to sell "diet" plans to sedentary obese persons, than it is
to tell them that they need to get their a.s of the couch and start
exercising.

I saw web banner ads for South Beach diets that say "lose weight
without exercise" or some such. What an abomination this SBD has
become.

i
223/175/180
Roger Zoul - 12 Dec 2003 10:56 GMT
:: In article <brb06t$1bavo$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
::
:: This is the most bizarre thing I heard in a very long time.

Which part?

:: I do loads of exercise for three reasons.
::
:: 1. It makes me feel good and objectively healthier.

Same here provided you remove the word "loads"

:: 2. It allows me to eat more, which is easier psychologically

I have lots of things to do, really, and it takes a good little while to put
in enough exercise to use up a bagel (not that I eat those, mind you).

:: 3. It keeps me focused on weight maintenance.

Hey, I never said there aren't some excellent reasons to exercise.

:: Exercise is essential for weight maintenance,

I disagree here.  Certainly it helps, but essential?  I'm not convinced of
that by a long shot.  Beneficial?  Absolutely.

it is essential for
:: staying healthy into old age,

Same comment.

and also, people who exercise look
:: better and cuter than people who do not.

I agree, generally.

:: I know two 38 year old women. One looks like she is maybe 30-32. She
:: exercises every day. Another looks like she is 50, she does not
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: for
:: their disparity in looks)

The second lady is fat because she eats too much.  Not because she doesn't
exercise.  Not exercising won't make you fat, eating too much will. I do
agree with you that exercising smartly would likely enable her to gain a
more youthful appearance.

::: If, on the other hand, you balance that exercise against things you
::: eat that give extra calories
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
:: I suspect strongly that the second option is less sustainable in the
:: long run. Keeping steady weight is very helpful healthwise.

The question is, what is steady?  If you weigh 200 lbs, then 5 lbs is 2.5 %.
Of course, 5 lbs was just something I threw out there.  It certainly could
be half that.

::: All that has to happen for you is to lose your ability to walk 100
::: minutes a day and you'll start to gain weight.  Hopefully, that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: about the same thing. It is definitely a concern for me, which you
:: correctly pinpointed.

But in terms of gaining weight, it need not be a concern.  You simply have
to control input, Ig!

:: There is a lot of wisdom in the saying "eat less, exercise more".
:: I suspect that sedentary lifestyle is a much larger cause of obesity
:: than it is made to sound.

I think the problem is more do to modern methods of obtaining food.
Advertizing and SuperCenter Walmarts (just to name one place). I can go to
Sam's Club and by a big jug of dry roasted and salted almonds.  Then, I can
proceed to eat them like a nut.  Very quickly, I can out eat in nuts would I
can exercise off in a day.

The reason for such a distortion is that it
:: is easier to sell "diet" plans to sedentary obese persons, than it is
:: to tell them that they need to get their a.s of the couch and start
:: exercising.

True.  However, getting off ones a.s is a good idea, I'm not saying it's
not.  However, diet is the key.

:: I saw web banner ads for South Beach diets that say "lose weight
:: without exercise" or some such. What an abomination this SBD has
:: become.

Well, for some being able to lose weight without exercise may be a good
first step.  However, if you include reasonable exercise after first gaining
control over diet, it makes a big differece.

BTW, I'm a former exercise nut.  Back in the early 90s, I lost 100 lbs on a
LF WOE.  My approach was to do 20 miles (1 hour) on a stationary bike in the
morning. I'd walk for lunch. Then, I'd do another 20 miles (1 hour) on a
stationary in the evening.   Everyday. On MWF, I'd go to the gym after the
second ride and hit the weights. So that I could sustain that, I ate mounds
of LF food.  I lost about 10 lbs per months.  Then, for various reasons, I
stopped the exercise...but I had not learned to control the eating.  So,
over several years, I regained that weight.

Now I eat way less food, train with weights 3x per week, and do cardio on
that stationary for no more than 20 minutes (high intensity) per day.
However, I trade that against my bicycling...if I can ride my road bike,
then I skip the stationary work, since I enjoy the outside riding.  I'm
doing more inside cardio now, however, since it is winter.  I've been able
to ride on weekends, however.

:: i
:: 223/175/180
Ignoramus19207 - 12 Dec 2003 15:38 GMT
>:: I do loads of exercise for three reasons.
>::
>:: 1. It makes me feel good and objectively healthier.
>
> Same here provided you remove the word "loads"

It's a subjective word.

>:: 2. It allows me to eat more, which is easier psychologically
>
> I have lots of things to do, really, and it takes a good little
> while to put in enough exercise to use up a bagel (not that I eat
> those, mind you).

A bagel is a lot of food.

>:: Exercise is essential for weight maintenance,
>
> I disagree here.  Certainly it helps, but essential?  I'm not convinced of
> that by a long shot.  Beneficial?  Absolutely.

Check out the NWLR study that showed that a great majority of
successful weight loss maintainers exercised 2800 calories per week.

>:: I suspect strongly that the second option is less sustainable in the
>:: long run. Keeping steady weight is very helpful healthwise.
>
> The question is, what is steady?  If you weigh 200 lbs, then 5 lbs is 2.5 %.
> Of course, 5 lbs was just something I threw out there.  It certainly could
> be half that.

and then it is just regular maintenance: you see your weight creeping
up, you eat a little less. Which is what I do.

>::: All that has to happen for you is to lose your ability to walk 100
>::: minutes a day and you'll start to gain weight.  Hopefully, that
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> But in terms of gaining weight, it need not be a concern.  You simply have
> to control input, Ig!

I have to control input even with exercise. Unfortunately, I am not at
the stage in life where I can eat all I want. It's just that with
exercise, quantity control is more palatable.

>:: There is a lot of wisdom in the saying "eat less, exercise more".
>:: I suspect that sedentary lifestyle is a much larger cause of obesity
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> proceed to eat them like a nut.  Very quickly, I can out eat in nuts would I
> can exercise off in a day.

And more. Absolutely, I am sure that there is more than one reason for
obesity. But, to me, lack of exercise ranks at least equal with
availability of food.

>  The reason for such a distortion is that it
>:: is easier to sell "diet" plans to sedentary obese persons, than it is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> True.  However, getting off ones a.s is a good idea, I'm not saying it's
> not.  However, diet is the key.

I suggest that we agree to disagree. Weight loss without exercise is
hard to sustain (not that weight loss with exercise is completely easy
to sustain).

> BTW, I'm a former exercise nut.  Back in the early 90s, I lost 100 lbs on a
> LF WOE.  My approach was to do 20 miles (1 hour) on a stationary bike in the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> stopped the exercise...but I had not learned to control the eating.  So,
> over several years, I regained that weight.

Absolutely. I feel for you and hope that I can keep my focus, which
remains to be seen. My view is, all three facets of weight control are
important: exercise, what you eat, and how much you eat. If you
control all three, weight control is much easier.

> Now I eat way less food, train with weights 3x per week, and do cardio on
> that stationary for no more than 20 minutes (high intensity) per day.
> However, I trade that against my bicycling...if I can ride my road bike,
> then I skip the stationary work, since I enjoy the outside riding.  I'm
> doing more inside cardio now, however, since it is winter.  I've been able
> to ride on weekends, however.

Very good Roger. I know that you post on misc.fitness.weights as well.

i
223/176/180
Roger Zoul - 12 Dec 2003 15:55 GMT
:: In article <brc6t8$1k3fb$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
::
:: It's a subjective word.

Then why use it if it doesn't provide clear meaning?

::::: 2. It allows me to eat more, which is easier psychologically
:::
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
::
:: A bagel is a lot of food.

And?  People wolf them down like nothing.  With cream cheese and other
stuff, too.

::::: Exercise is essential for weight maintenance,
:::
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: Check out the NWLR study that showed that a great majority of
:: successful weight loss maintainers exercised 2800 calories per week.

And? This doesn't proof that exercise is essential.

::::: I suspect strongly that the second option is less sustainable in
::::: the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
:: and then it is just regular maintenance: you see your weight creeping
:: up, you eat a little less. Which is what I do.

Right.

:::::: All that has to happen for you is to lose your ability to walk
:::::: 100 minutes a day and you'll start to gain weight.  Hopefully,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
:: the stage in life where I can eat all I want. It's just that with
:: exercise, quantity control is more palatable.

LC works for me.  As long as I don't eat nuts, that is. :)

::::: There is a lot of wisdom in the saying "eat less, exercise more".
::::: I suspect that sedentary lifestyle is a much larger cause of
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
:: for obesity. But, to me, lack of exercise ranks at least equal with
:: availability of food.

Okay.  I disagree, however.

:::  The reason for such a distortion is that it
::::: is easier to sell "diet" plans to sedentary obese persons, than
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
:: easy
:: to sustain).

Okay, we disagree.

::: BTW, I'm a former exercise nut.  Back in the early 90s, I lost 100
::: lbs on a LF WOE.  My approach was to do 20 miles (1 hour) on a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
:: are important: exercise, what you eat, and how much you eat. If you
:: control all three, weight control is much easier.

I agree with you here.  It's the subtle places where we disagree.  I'll say
it again: I think exericse is very important to weight loss, weight control,
and overall health.  I don't think it is essential to weight loss, however.
Saying that something is essential basically means, to me, that it is
impossible to do something without that component, and I patently disagree
with that thinking.  If one wishes to do so, one can lose and control weight
without making any additional effort to do exercise (beyond that necessary
just to complete day-to-day tasks).

That, imo, is an important message for those who, for one reason or other,
may not be able to exercise.  By your thinking, Ig, and overweight person
who can't exericse might as well just accept being fat and live with the
consequences.  I won't let that kind of thinking go unchallenged.

::: Now I eat way less food, train with weights 3x per week, and do
::: cardio on that stationary for no more than 20 minutes (high
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
:: Very good Roger. I know that you post on misc.fitness.weights as
:: well.

I'm planning my first 100 mile bicycle ride for something in fall 2004.  So,
I'm be training for that come early spring.  I'm really looking forward to
it, too.

:: i
:: 223/176/180
Ignoramus19207 - 12 Dec 2003 16:00 GMT
>:: In article <brc6t8$1k3fb$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
>:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Then why use it if it doesn't provide clear meaning?

Well, I walk 100 minutes per day and lift weights for 20-30 minutes.

>::::: 2. It allows me to eat more, which is easier psychologically
>:::
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> And?  People wolf them down like nothing.  With cream cheese and other
> stuff, too.

It is still a lot of food. Some people overeat terribly.

>::::: Exercise is essential for weight maintenance,
>:::
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> And? This doesn't proof that exercise is essential.

No, but it gives strong suggestion that it is the case.

i
Roger Zoul - 12 Dec 2003 16:47 GMT
:: In article <brcodi$1qcu4$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
::
:: No, but it gives strong suggestion that it is the case.

Not really.  You'd have to establish that these people would gain weight if
they stopped exercising, but kept other matters under control.  Those who
are dedicated will find a way....even though I admit that exercise does
provide focus -- at least for me it does. I don't deny the benefits of
exercise.

Oh, that should have been "prove," obviously.  I hate typos.
Reality Check - 12 Dec 2003 00:55 GMT
.

> > Losing weight with "loads of exercise" is not good common sense if you can't
> > keep it up.

It isn't common sense if you don't exercise at all.  It's why so many people
fail to lose weight.. because they think they will successfully do it
without moving their bodies.  So if you have any sense at all, you WILL keep
exercising *AND* keep eating sensibly forever.  It's a total change in
lifestyle.

> You omitted other parts of that weight loss program, plus, loads of
> exercising can be continued into weight maintenance. I am 3 months
> into maintenance and I keep up with substantial daily exercise.
>
> I like living this way.

I agree.

> >:: If your diet does not allow you to eat plenty of vegetables in
> >:: maintenance mode, it is a bad diet, period. Vegetables are good for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> > Accidentally?  Come on, ig.
Roger Zoul - 12 Dec 2003 03:15 GMT
::: In article <brakkb$1adhm$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
:: many people fail to lose weight.. because they think they will
:: successfully do it without moving their bodies.

They can.  I see many "normal" weight people who do practically no exercise.

So if you have any
:: sense at all, you WILL keep exercising *AND* keep eating sensibly
:: forever.  It's a total change in lifestyle.

I never said exercise wasn't important, or that it isn't a good idea, in
fact I think it is a very good idea.  However, it is NOT common sense to
lose weight by doing "loads of exercise" if you can't keep it up.
Reality Check - 12 Dec 2003 04:37 GMT
> ::: In article <brakkb$1adhm$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
> :: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> They can.  I see many "normal" weight people who do practically no exercise.

I don't see the relevance of "normal" weight people in my previous
statement.  Normal weight people don't try to lose weight... was talking
about the people who do and don't succeed/or maintain it if they do.

>  So if you have any
> :: sense at all, you WILL keep exercising *AND* keep eating sensibly
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> fact I think it is a very good idea.  However, it is NOT common sense to
> lose weight by doing "loads of exercise" if you can't keep it up.

"loads of exercise" is a relative word.  What I meant by it is "much more
than none".  It is not common sense to not try and keep it up.  Why set
yourself up for failure?  Even normal weight people should exercise or stay
active.  How can anyone dispute that, really?  My argument is that weight
problems cannot be solved by diet all on its own.  People still need to move
and use their body somehow... that's all.
Roger Zoul - 12 Dec 2003 10:30 GMT
::: Reality Check wrote:
:::::: In article <brakkb$1adhm$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
:: talking about the people who do and don't succeed/or maintain it if
:: they do.

1.  Exercise helps one to lose weight.
2. Exericse is not necessary to lose weight.

:::  So if you have any
::::: sense at all, you WILL keep exercising *AND* keep eating sensibly
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
:: "loads of exercise" is a relative word.  What I meant by it is "much
:: more than none".

Well, you used a term which made  me think that you really doing lots and
lots of exercise to you can lose that last 10-15 lbs.  If what  you mean is
that you're incorporating exercise into your lifestlye, then carry on.

It is not common sense to not try and keep it up.
:: Why set yourself up for failure?

That's what you'd be doing IF you were doing lots and lots of exercise
(i.e., "loads of exercise") to get the weight off.

:: Even normal weight people should
:: exercise or stay active.

Agreed.  But many don't.

 How can anyone dispute that, really?  My
:: argument is that weight problems cannot be solved by diet all on its
:: own.

That's not true.  Certainly, doing so without exercise is far from optimal,
but people can lose weight without exercise.

People still need to move and use their body somehow... that's
:: all.

I agree.
Ignoramus5005 - 12 Dec 2003 04:45 GMT
>::: In article <brakkb$1adhm$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
>:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> fact I think it is a very good idea.  However, it is NOT common sense to
> lose weight by doing "loads of exercise" if you can't keep it up.

I think that if you cannot exercise, it may be better to not even
attempt losing weight... Seriously.

i
Roger Zoul - 12 Dec 2003 10:57 GMT
:: In article <brbbt6$16auu$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
:: I think that if you cannot exercise, it may be better to not even
:: attempt losing weight... Seriously.

Big mistake, Ig.
Reality Check - 12 Dec 2003 12:58 GMT
> :: I think that if you cannot exercise, it may be better to not even
> :: attempt losing weight... Seriously.
>
> Big mistake, Ig.

I agree with you Ignoramus5005... what I don't understand is... why don't I
see all the posts??? I'm using Outlook Express... some replies don't show up
in it... I hope I don't have to use Google.
Roger Zoul - 12 Dec 2003 15:29 GMT
::: Ignoramus5005 wrote:
:::::
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
:: don't I see all the posts??? I'm using Outlook Express... some
:: replies don't show up in it... I hope I don't have to use Google.

It may be your news server.
Ignoramus19207 - 12 Dec 2003 15:41 GMT
>> :: I think that if you cannot exercise, it may be better to not even
>> :: attempt losing weight... Seriously.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> see all the posts??? I'm using Outlook Express... some replies don't show up
> in it... I hope I don't have to use Google.

No idea.

The reason why I said that it is better not to attampt to lose weight
w/o exercise is, 1) weight loss without exercise causes loss of
muscles, generally speaking and 2) due to very low chances of success,
no-exercise weight losers may be failing more often. And weight
cycling is very bad for health.

What confounds this is that exercise quantity can be a proxy for
"willpower" and "dedication". That is, people who "really want to lose
weight" are willing to exercise and have willpower to exercise instead
of watching TV. And so exercise is not a cause of successful
weightloss, but a confounding variable and a proxy for willpower.

In my personal experience though, exercise was essential.

i
H. Harrand - 12 Dec 2003 21:20 GMT
> >> :: I think that if you cannot exercise, it may be better to not even
> >> :: attempt losing weight... Seriously.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> i

The last sentence is the one that counts ig.........In YOUR
experience........only YOURS...........

helen
Ignoramus19207 - 13 Dec 2003 03:53 GMT
>> >> :: I think that if you cannot exercise, it may be better to not even
>> >> :: attempt losing weight... Seriously.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> helen

Not only mine. Successful weight losers from the national weight loss
registry also report spending 2800 calories per week exercising,
according to a study.

It is equivalent to walking 18-20 miles per week.

I am not sure where you are in your weight loss journey or what you do
regarding exercise. But it benefits more or less everyone.

i
223/176/180
jmk - 19 Dec 2003 13:22 GMT
> I agree with you Ignoramus5005... what I don't understand is... why don't I
> see all the posts??? I'm using Outlook Express... some replies don't show up
> in it... I hope I don't have to use Google.

I think that this ng is just messed up on some news servers.  Here it is
12/19 and I am just seeing your post made on 12/12 :-(  My news server
is good with other groups which is why I say maybe it's the group?  Who
knows.  Maybe I'll try another news server and see if I get the same
results...

Signature

jmk in NC

H. Harrand - 12 Dec 2003 21:19 GMT
> >::: In article <brakkb$1adhm$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul
> >:: wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> i

I'm so very glad that you have no right to dictate this.  I think it's
dangerous to even put this statement out there.

Eating better/less to achieve better HEALTH is a good thing in and of
itself.  Better than being thin and having a terrible diet.

helen
Ignoramus5005 - 11 Dec 2003 17:40 GMT
My advice is to eat plenty of vegetables, not supplements.

i
PJx - 11 Dec 2003 17:51 GMT
>My advice is to eat plenty of vegetables, not supplements.
>
>i

That's too broad a statement for those doing Atkins.
3 cups a day MAX is what my book says.

PJ
Ignoramus5005 - 11 Dec 2003 18:12 GMT
>>My advice is to eat plenty of vegetables, not supplements.
>>
>>i
>
>  That's too broad a statement for those doing Atkins.
>  3 cups a day MAX is what my book says.

Are you referring to weight maintenance?

There is plenty of vegetables with los carb content. Check out
tomatoes, cucumbers, bell peppers, cabbage, green onion, etc etc.

Not eating vegetables is a very bad practice and has been linked to
cancer (with varying quality of evidence).

Besides, vegetables are filling and reduce appetite.

i
who eats like 2 lbs of vegs per day and can binge on tomatoes
Roger Zoul - 11 Dec 2003 20:40 GMT
:: In article <mjbhtvcg1qi3nnnrmbhreg5l6ruf3hh2m8@4ax.com>, PJx wrote:
::: On 11 Dec 2003 17:40:24 GMT, Ignoramus5005
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
:: There is plenty of vegetables with los carb content. Check out
:: tomatoes, cucumbers, bell peppers, cabbage, green onion, etc etc.

Broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, green leafy lettuces, squash, asparagus,
etc.

:: Not eating vegetables is a very bad practice and has been linked to
:: cancer (with varying quality of evidence).
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: i
:: who eats like 2 lbs of vegs per day and can binge on tomatoes
jamie - 11 Dec 2003 19:35 GMT
>>My advice is to eat plenty of vegetables, not supplements.
>
>  That's too broad a statement for those doing Atkins.
>  3 cups a day MAX is what my book says.

Induction restrictions are only two weeks.  Even staying at 20g/day after
Induction, one can easily fit in 5 or 6 servings of LC vegetables and
stay within 20 net grams, if you're not spending much of your carbs on
dairy, dessert, and sweetener.

Signature

 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

The Queen of Cans and Jars - 11 Dec 2003 22:32 GMT
> >My advice is to eat plenty of vegetables, not supplements.
> >
> >i
>
>  That's too broad a statement for those doing Atkins.
>  3 cups a day MAX is what my book says.

only during induction, which is only supposed to be for two weeks.
Jack Hatfield - 11 Dec 2003 19:21 GMT
Wheat germ also helps

> My advice is to eat plenty of vegetables, not supplements.
>
> i

Northeastern Missouri
Ignoramus5005 - 11 Dec 2003 19:51 GMT
> Wheat germ also helps

sure... and wheat bran.

i

>> My advice is to eat plenty of vegetables, not supplements.
>>
>> i
>
> Northeastern Missouri
jamie - 11 Dec 2003 19:45 GMT
> I have successfully lost over 25 pounds on the Atkins diet, from 196
> to 170.
> I love it and intend to continue with this WOE.
> Among the other things I've noticed while on this diet is that I dont'
> go to the bathroom (BM) as often as I used to go. Sometimes I go for a
> few days before I get the urge to have a bowel movement.

First of all, let me quote several authorities on "regularity", after
which I have a lengthy canned post about your question.  (The short
answer is that there is a lot less volume of waste on a lowcarb diet.)

 Boston University Medical Center
 http://www.bu.edu/cohis/nutrtion/disease/constptn/whatis.htm
"The frequency of bowel movements among healthy people varies greatly,
ranging from three movements a day to three a week."

 The American Gastroenterological Association
 http://www.gastro.org/constipation.html
"The frequency of bowel movements among healthy people varies from three
movements a day to three a week."

 THE CENTRE FOR DIGESTIVE DISEASES - SYDNEY
 http://www.cdd.com.au/sheets/5_1.htm
"The normal range varies greatly but most people will move their bowels
between 3 times a day and 3 times a week."

 James A. Clifton Ctr for Digestive Diseases, U. Iowa Hospitals and Clinics
 http://www.vh.org/Patients/IHB/IntMed/Gastro/Constipation.html
"Normal bowel habits among healthy people vary greatly from three times a
day to three times a week."

[end quotes]

Studies published within the last year or two have indicated that fiber
does not protect against colon cancer, and the biggest risk factor for
colon cancer is abdominal overweight, combined with high blood glucose
and high levels of insulin.
 See http://www.upmc.edu/newsbureau/science/vatstudy.htm
   regarding these risk factor conclusions.
(I didn't save a link regarding fiber not protecting against colon
cancer, but I'll tack on a saved newspaper article at the end of the
post.)

Some people do get constipated, but more beginners confuse needing to go
less often than they did on a carby diet with constipation.  The medical
definition of constipation is difficult and/or painful elimination.

"Daily regularity" was a phrase made up to sell laxatives, and according
to various gastroenterology association sites, "normal" elimination
is anywhere from 3 times a day to 3 times a week.  Some people become
needlessly alarmed if they don't have the urge to go every day when
starting low carb.  There's less volume of waste in a low carb diet.

Now, this is just my personal opinion, but I think that typical fiber
recommendations for ordinary high carb diets may not be as much needed on
low carb.  High carb diets create a lot of paste-like waste that needs to
be pushed through by fiber.  People who are eating mainly fresh low carb
foods, with little or no lowcarb candy or packaged lowcarb imitations
of carby foods, have often mentioned how, shall we say, quick and clean
elimination is, and pretty much gas free.  (LC products sweetened with
sugar alcohols, though, tend to create gas for most people, and some
ingredients in LC specialty products also create paste-like waste.)

I've been lowcarbing 5 and a half years, (3 and a half years maintaining
goal weight) and I can count on one hand the number of times that I've
needed to take psyllium as a laxative.  But if I decide to have a blender
protein shake as a quickie meal, I'll usually put a rounded teaspoonful of
psyllium in to add fiber and as a thickener, so it's handy to keep around.

I generally get my fiber from lowcarb vegetables and nuts, and a little
ground flax seeds sprinkled on some foods, like salads.  A lot of folks
here enjoy ground flax seed made as a hot cereal.  Personally, I don't
care for flax alone as cereal, but I sometimes make a hot cereal of a
a crushed Wasa brand Fiber Rye cracker or two, some crushed pecans or
almonds and some flax meal, with cinnamon and sweetener.

Flax seed can usually be found in the bulk bin section of supermarkets
and natural foods grocery stores.  You can grind it in a coffee grinder
to make flax meal.  Packaged flax meal, typically "Bob's Red Mill" brand,
can often be found either in the natural foods section of supermarkets
that have an expanded natural foods and supplements section, or sometimes
among the bread mixes and unusual flours in the baking aisle.

(Flax meal has about a half gram of usable carb per tablespoon, and
almost 3 grams of fiber.)

----saved newspaper article------

October 12, 2000
Study: Fiber Doesn't Prevent Cancer

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:02 p.m. ET

LONDON (AP) -- Evidence is mounting that fiber might not prevent colon
cancer after all, with a new study suggesting that one type of
supplement might even be bad for the colon.

The theory that a high-fiber diet wards off the second-leading cancer
killer has been around since the 1970s, but the evidence was never
strong. The concept began to crumble last year when the first of three
major U.S. studies found it had no effect.

In the latest study, published this week in The Lancet medical journal,
European researchers found that precancerous growths, or polyps, were
slightly more likely to recur in those taking a certain fiber
supplement.

The findings demonstrate the difficulty of trying to figure out the
relationship between nutrition and disease, said Dr. Michael Thun, who
heads epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society.

Fiber is particularly complicated, he said, because there are various
types and they all could act differently.

``The concept of a healthy diet continues to be the recommendation for
overall health,'' Thun said. ``But the painful process of clarifying
which ingredients in food do what will take us decades to sort out.''

Thun said the American Cancer Society will revisit its recommendations
on fiber and colon cancer in light of the growing body of evidence
eroding support for the theory that it wards off the disease.

Experts recommend a low fat, high-fiber diet rich in fruits and
vegetables and whole grains because it has been shown to reduce the
risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and some other
cancers.

``There is definitely something dietary going on with bowel cancer, but
we haven't really been able to fix on what it is,'' said Dr. Tim Key, a
cancer researcher at Oxford University who was not connected with the
study. ``The cause of colorectal cancer is very far from understood.''

The latest study, conducted by scientists at the University of
Bourgogne, France, does not address the effect of a high-fiber diet,
but of supplements of one type of fiber -- ispaghula husk, a compound
similar to psyllium that is not part of the average diet.

Psyllium, a grain grown in India, is found in some over-the-counter
laxatives and fiber supplements.

The study, involving 552 Europeans who previously had precancerous
growths in the bowel, found that 29 percent of those receiving the
supplement got at least one new tumor within three years. That compares
with 20 percent of those given fake granules.

The findings may or may not be related to the role fiber in general
plays in bowel cancer but, considered together with other recent
studies, the plausibility of a protective role looks less likely.

``This does produce more evidence for the negative side,'' said Dr.
Lesley Walker, a scientist at the London-based Imperial Cancer Research
Fund, which was not connected to the research.

``But we still haven't got the totality of the evidence we want,''
Walker said. ``There are still some important ongoing studies under way
on the fiber question that should give us some solid answers.''

Sorting out the influence of genes, food, pollutants, living habits and
other factors requires drawing together information from many different
scientific approaches. Those include lab experiments, rat studies,
observations of large groups of people and human experiments.

Information from all of these kinds of science went into the rise and
fall of the idea that fiber prevents colon cancer.

It started when scientists noticed that Westerners get more colon
cancer than poor people in rural Africa. While the differences between
these two populations are too numerous to count, an obvious one was the
Africans' higher consumption of fiber.

Over time, many lines of evidence seemed to support the theory.

People see their risk of colon cancer rise when they move from places
with low rates to areas where it's more common and they adopt the local
eating habits.

Furthermore, the idea made sense. Fiber makes the stool bulkier and
perhaps more likely to dilute cancer-causing substances. It also causes
them to flow more quickly through the digestive system.

The data seemed convincing enough for health agencies to recommend high-
fiber foods as one way of preventing colon cancer.

Then last year, the first major study putting the theory to the test,
in which researchers based at Harvard School of Public Health studied
88,757 nurses for 16 years, concluded fiber doesn't help.

---- end newspaper article ----

Signature

 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

--
 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

Roger Zoul - 11 Dec 2003 20:46 GMT
::   Boston University Medical Center
::   http://www.bu.edu/cohis/nutrtion/disease/constptn/whatis.htm
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
:: "Normal bowel habits among healthy people vary greatly from three
:: times a day to three times a week."

Honestly, it sounds like these guys are just repeating what they heard
somewhere. That's a bit scary to me.

:: [end quotes]

[...]

:: I generally get my fiber from lowcarb vegetables and nuts, and a
:: little ground flax seeds sprinkled on some foods, like salads.  A
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: a crushed Wasa brand Fiber Rye cracker or two, some crushed pecans or
:: almonds and some flax meal, with cinnamon and sweetener.

Me too.
gleason - 17 Jan 2004 20:51 GMT
Back to the title of the thread...has anyone come up with a real solution
for Low Carb diet and regularity???  That would be my more serious problem
at this stage in my diet.
Thanks!
placidbull - 17 Jan 2004 21:22 GMT
Yes .... indeed I have come up with a great workable solution for the
low-carb regularity problem ... I take a total of 8 fibercon tablets a day
... two in the morning, noon, afternoon, and evening ... it has completely
solved my regularity problem ... in fact it is better then it has ever been
before in my life ...

good luck on your low-carbing

Placid

> Back to the title of the thread...has anyone come up with a real solution
> for Low Carb diet and regularity???  That would be my more serious problem
> at this stage in my diet.
> Thanks!
gleason - 17 Jan 2004 21:32 GMT
Thanks much!  I was in a great deal of discomfort last week and struggled
for a solution.  Thanks for the well wishes too.  Now just have to break out
of the Metabolism sluggishness.
Jerry

> Yes .... indeed I have come up with a great workable solution for the
> low-carb regularity problem ... I take a total of 8 fibercon tablets a day
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> > at this stage in my diet.
> > Thanks!
TE - 17 Jan 2004 21:54 GMT
> Back to the title of the thread...has anyone come up with a real solution
> for Low Carb diet and regularity???  That would be my more serious problem
> at this stage in my diet.
> Thanks!

I find both Metamucil and Atkin cereals excellent sorces of fiber for
those of you aiming for less then 30 grams...
Sprgtime - 22 Jan 2004 15:43 GMT
> > Back to the title of the thread...has anyone come up with a real solution
> > for Low Carb diet and regularity???  That would be my more serious problem
> > at this stage in my diet.
> > Thanks!

I haven't had any regularity issues yet...
I do drink LOTS of water, though, and most of my carbs are from veggies.

--
Spring
LC since 1/1/04
250/239/170
Supergoof - 23 Jan 2004 04:26 GMT
> > > Back to the title of the thread...has anyone come up with a real
> solution
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I haven't had any regularity issues yet...
> I do drink LOTS of water, though, and most of my carbs are from veggies.

That's it - water, water and more water. If you're still having problems try
psyllium husks or flaxseed. You'll still need plenty of water to flush 'em
through though. I prefer psyllium because it regulates me either way, as I
very between the two extremes. Flaxseed was a little *too* effective for me.

Exercise helps too, if you're not doing any yet.

There's always sugar alcohols if you need a good blow-out. A handful of
anything sweetened with maltitol, isomalt or one of the others usually has
very quick results!

cheers
Rachel
(New Zealand)
Joon - 23 Jan 2004 04:41 GMT
> There's always sugar alcohols if you need a good blow-out. A handful of
> anything sweetened with maltitol, isomalt or one of the others usually has
> very quick results!

your mileage may vary. sugar alcohols have no effect on me.

I take a dose of psyllium every night around 7pm. once you do this for
a few days you'll have impressive and regular dumps.

Signature

you know, if Jesus comes back to Earth, I bet the last
thing he'll want to see again is another cross.

Priscilla Ballou - 17 Jan 2004 22:11 GMT
> Back to the title of the thread...has anyone come up with a real solution
> for Low Carb diet and regularity???  That would be my more serious problem
> at this stage in my diet.
> Thanks!

Fiber.  For me, the cabbage family of vegetables:  broccoli, brussels
sprouts, cabbage, Chinese cabbage, cauliflower.

Priscilla
Brigitte J. - 18 Jan 2004 01:33 GMT
> Back to the title of the thread...has anyone come up with a real solution
> for Low Carb diet and regularity???  That would be my more serious problem
> at this stage in my diet.
> Thanks!

Planter's Deluxe Mixed Nuts...

Until I started eating them I would go several days without "going".  Now I
wake up every morning and can count on Mr. Peanut's help.

Brigitte
Jacqueline Davidson - 18 Jan 2004 04:39 GMT
Uncle Sams flax cereal topped with a bit of flax meal.  Flax means never
having to say you're constipated.
Jackie

> > Back to the title of the thread...has anyone come up with a real solution
> > for Low Carb diet and regularity???  That would be my more serious problem
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Brigitte
FOB - 18 Jan 2004 04:12 GMT
A cheaper sugar free Metamucil knockoff twice a day.

In news:100j812cmce2o05@corp.supernews.com,
gleason <gleason@swko.net> stated
| Back to the title of the thread...has anyone come up with a real
| solution for Low Carb diet and regularity???  That would be my more
| serious problem at this stage in my diet.
| Thanks!
gleason - 18 Jan 2004 12:16 GMT
THANKS!  Surely one of those things will work!
J
PJx - 13 Dec 2003 18:42 GMT
Good, scientific stuff, Jamie.

So where does that leave you on your plans to reduce your risk of
colon cancer??

PJ

>> I have successfully lost over 25 pounds on the Atkins diet, from 196
>> to 170.
[quoted text clipped - 185 lines]
>
>---- end newspaper article ----
jamie - 13 Dec 2003 21:37 GMT
>  Good, scientific stuff, Jamie.
>
>  So where does that leave you on your plans to reduce your risk of
> colon cancer??

Coming up on 5 years maintaining goal weight under my belt, I think I
have that problem reasonably well in hand.

from http://www.upmc.edu/newsbureau/science/vatstudy.htm

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
RESEARCHERS DEMONSTRATE METABOLIC LINK BETWEEN LARGE WAISTS
AND COLORECTAL CANCER

PITTSBURGH, July 15, 1999 -- People with large waistlines
suffer metabolic changes that significantly predispose them to
developing colorectal cancer, according to new data from a
University of Pittsburgh-led study whose results are published in the
July 7 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. This
information is the first to link intra-abdominal fat, or visceral adipose
tissue (VAT), and its associated metabolic changes with colorectal
cancer, according to the authors.

"For several years, scientists have recognized that obese people are
more likely to develop colorectal cancer. Our study sheds light on
the metabolic process underlying this connection," said Robert
Schoen, M.D., assistant professor of medicine at the University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine, where he is the medical director of
the Center for Families at Risk for Colorectal Cancer. "The
metabolic parameters we measured, including glucose, insulin and
waist circumference, reveal a risk of colorectal cancer that equals or
exceeds other known risk factors, such as having a first-degree
relative with this disease or consuming a high-fat or low-fiber diet."

The current report is based on a study of 5,849 people age 65 and
older who participated in the Cardiovascular Health Study, a
multi-center observational study of risk factors for coronary heart
disease and stroke. The researchers found that people with increased
waistlines, high levels of glucose (the sugar needed to fuel the body's
activities) and high levels of insulin (the hormone that helps dispose
of glucose) were twice as likely to develop colorectal cancer as
individuals without these characteristics. Individuals in the study who
developed colorectal cancer did not differ from their non-affected
counterparts in terms of smoking, current aspirin use, alcoholic
drinks consumed per week, percent of fat calories in diet or mean
number of vegetable or fruit servings per week. Study participants
were followed for an average 6.5 years.

"A very important finding here is that people with increased amounts
of abdominal obesity, or VAT, do not need to be diabetic to develop
colorectal cancer," remarked Lewis Kuller, M.D., Dr.P.H.,
chairman of the department of epidemiology at the University of
Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health and study
co-investigator. "Nondiabetics appear to have an elevated risk of
colorectal cancer as their fasting insulin and glucose rise, even if
glucose levels do not reach those defined as consistent with
diabetes."

Previous studies have shown that insulin and insulin-like growth
factors (IGFs) stimulate the growth of colorectal cancers. Obesity
appears to decrease the production of proteins that bind with
circulating IGFs, thus exposing the body to higher concentrations of
these substances. More research is needed to clarify the roles VAT,
insulin, IGF and IGF-binding factors play in causing colorectal
cancer, according to the investigators.

Other researchers on the federally funded study include Catherine
M. Tangen, Ph.D., department of biostatistics, University of
Washington, Seattle; Gregory L. Burke, M.D., department of public
health and sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
Winston-Salem, N.C.; Mary Cushman, M.D., departments of
medicine and pathology, University of Vermont, Burlington; Russell
P. Tracy, Ph.D., departments of medicine, pathology and
biochemistry, University of Vermont; Adrian Dobs, M.D.,
department of medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Md.; and Peter J. Savage, M.D., National Heart, Lung and Blood
Institute, Bethesda, Md.

                                   # # #

[end]

Signature

 jamie (mjwm@cox-internet.com)

        "There's a seeker born every minute."

Athleticman89 - 19 Dec 2003 18:30 GMT
Thanks for the through response to my question,
I really appreciate it.
 
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.