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.

How long is it safe to stay on induction

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
GH - 10 Jan 2004 03:35 GMT
Hello, I am new to the group, and very glad to have found it!
I have learnt alot reading some of the questions and answers.
I have just started the Atkins diet today, and have done really well
today.
Although, already I have the headache..just have to deal with that
though.

My guestion is..How long is it safe to stay on induction?  I know the
book says you can stay on it longer if you are severly
overweight..which I am..I need to loose at least 100 lbs.

I thank you in advance for your help and support

GH
Steven C \(Doktersteve\) - 10 Jan 2004 03:54 GMT
> Hello, I am new to the group, and very glad to have found it!
> I have learnt alot reading some of the questions and answers.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> GH

It is safe to stay on induction indefinitely, as long as you are taking in
proper nutrients in what you eat as well as not being backed up from lack of
fiber.
Sunshyne - 10 Jan 2004 06:20 GMT
> > Hello, I am new to the group, and very glad to have found it!
> > I have learnt alot reading some of the questions and answers.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> proper nutrients in what you eat as well as not being backed up from lack of
> fiber.

I am allready backed up from Pain Meds I take for the pain with Fibro.
I do take a med called Perdiem, got it from the grocery store and it
helps alot. I think it would be OK to continue using it for
constipation while in indcuction wouldn't it?
Steven C. \(Doktersteve\) - 10 Jan 2004 07:54 GMT
> > > Hello, I am new to the group, and very glad to have found it!
> > > I have learnt alot reading some of the questions and answers.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> helps alot. I think it would be OK to continue using it for
> constipation while in indcuction wouldn't it?

Hi Sunshyne,

from what i can tell, Perdiem is just a variant of psyllium, which contains
no carbs and is the main ingredient in metamucil and other regularity drugs.
It is fine to use, and is recommended by most doctors as a non laxative type
of therapy.
see this page:

http://tinylink.com/?mi0L8RjCZk

The good news is that psyllium is widely available in most natural health
food and conventional pharmacies. You can buy it in either husk or seed
forum. you want to look for it in HUSK form.
It is the main ingredient in any metamucil product you can buy. Beware that
some of these concoctions may be sweetened with just regular sugar, some
with aspartame (which should be ok, as the dosages are very low).

If you go with the prefab type stuff, just follow the directions on the
label.
If you go the bulk route, it may taste blander, but will be CONSIDERABLY
cheaper.
Add 1 tablespoon to an 8 oz glass of water, and drink it down. It gets a
strange texture  if you let it sit too long. Keep mixing it in and drinking,
and add more water as you go if you need to.
If 1tablespoon doesnt do it, then go for 2 tablespoons.

If you are really lacking fiber, this may take a day or two to work, but it
WILL work.

What you should consider doing is adding in some leafy green veggies into
your diet. Induction is about 20g of carbs or less, and it is important to
get natural sources of fiber into yourself.
There are a bunch of low carb veggies out there, check this page out:

http://atkins.com/global/carb-counter/carb-counter.html?cat=vegetables

Subtract the fiber from the carbs, and you will see that some of them you
can eat plenty of!

Good luck. Keep the faith, and mind your body if it feels bad, chances are
it is telling you something :-)
HanK - 10 Jan 2004 10:16 GMT
> "Sunshyne"

Ask your Dr.
Myway - 10 Jan 2004 11:17 GMT
> > > Hello, I am new to the group, and very glad to have found it!
> > > I have learnt alot reading some of the questions and answers.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> helps alot. I think it would be OK to continue using it for
> constipation while in indcuction wouldn't it?

During induction phase if you up your water intake and eat the veggies
allowed, the constipation phase will work itself out (no pun intended)
Induction phase also should not be done more than about 6 months. Can't
recall the page number, but it is mentioned on maximum length of time
for induction. Plus, your body will need more fuel from different foods.
Read more, exercise more, it actually gets easier by the day.

Myway
The_Pittmans - 10 Jan 2004 14:01 GMT
> > > > Hello, I am new to the group, and very glad to have found it!
> > > > I have learnt alot reading some of the questions and answers.
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Myway

Don't know where I read this, but some nutritionist , agreeable to the
Atkins' diet, wrote an article saying you should not stay on induction for
more than six month because it is very taxing on your kidneys, and could
lead to kidney failure.

Patty
Doug Freyburger - 10 Jan 2004 19:35 GMT
> Don't know where I read this, but some nutritionist , agreeable to the
> Atkins' diet, wrote an article saying you should not stay on induction for
> more than six month because it is very taxing on your kidneys, and could
> lead to kidney failure.

That's nonsense.  Zero cases of kidney problems have even been reported
by people who started out with healthy kidneys and who followed the
directions.

To find the source of the 6 month limit, go to the 1993 edition, look up
"reversal diet" in the index, and start reading a page before that for
full context.  Plenty of people who stay at 20 have their CCLL crash to
zero any time after 6 months.  Eskimos and Inuits who live the traditional
hunting lifestyle on the ice can go years on near zero carbs and they are
not in ketosis.  The body adjusts.
revek - 10 Jan 2004 20:55 GMT
>> Don't know where I read this, but some nutritionist , agreeable to
>> the Atkins' diet, wrote an article saying you should not stay on
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> reported by people who started out with healthy kidneys and who
> followed the directions.

And a few with impaired kidneys who've reported improved kidney
function.  Re our own Aramanth Dawe. :)

Signature

revek
Where am I going and what am I doing in this handbasket?

Martha Gallagher - 12 Jan 2004 18:20 GMT
> > Don't know where I read this, but some nutritionist , agreeable to the
> > Atkins' diet, wrote an article saying you should not stay on induction for
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> hunting lifestyle on the ice can go years on near zero carbs and they are
> not in ketosis.  The body adjusts.

I can't find a 1993 edition listed on Half.com They do have a copy of the
1992 edition, Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution(Updated)  (Hardcover, 1992)
and perhaps the '93 edition is just the paperback version of that, so I'll
get the hard copy.

In the meantime, would you mind giving a synopsis of the reversal diet? I
think I need it.

Thanks,
Martha

Signature

Begin where you are - but don't end there.

Doug Freyburger - 13 Jan 2004 00:24 GMT
> > To find the source of the 6 month limit, go to the 1993 edition, look up
> > "reversal diet" in the index, and start reading a page before that for
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> and perhaps the '93 edition is just the paperback version of that, so I'll
> get the hard copy.

You don't need to look it up in the book if you're already a living
example of someone who abused Indcution and had their CCLL crash to
zero.  There's only a page about it.  No point in buying a whole book
for that.  Unless you *like* getting books.

> In the meantime, would you mind giving a synopsis of the reversal diet? I
> think I need it.

Two weeks of ultra-low fat high-carb moderate glycemic index.  You eat all
of the fruits and veggies you want other than the high glycemic index ones.
No bananas, dates, pineapples, dried fruit.  No regular potatoes.  Nothing
else.  It's a major purge and you'll be famished the entire time from the
insulin release.

But Dr Atkins devised that because he didn't know about how the hormone
leptin works.  There's an easier, more skills based method to reset your
metabolism.  The science beyond it is just newer than the good doctor.
It's called a controlled carb refeed, and it's purpose is to rest your
leptin levels.  It's risky, but I think it isn't as risky as the reversal
diet, mostly because it doesn't last as long:

First you have to swear you'll move on to OWL the minute you complete the
process.  There's no point in reversing the metabolic damage of abusing
Induction if all you're going to do is repeat the abuse.

Next you need to figure out those higher carb items that don't cause you
binge problems.  Of course if you'd moved on to OWL you'd already know
the list but the entire point of abusing Induction is you never learned
what carb foods you can and can't eat.  So you'll have to gueess the best
you can.  Did you used to crave starchy food or sweet food before you
started?

If you used to crave sweet food before you started, go to the store and
buy several of every starchy food you can.  Envelopes of oatmeal, a couple
of every root-looking veggie on the shelf, a small sack of brown rice.
But not the highest risk ones potatoes, white bread, white rice.
Controlled amounts.  Only get half of a cart full.  Enough that if you
stuff yourself on it, it will be gone in 48 hours.

If you used to crave starchy food (like me), go to the store and buy
several of every sweet fruit you can.  A few each of every type of fruit
no matter that you've every had it before.  But only fruit.  No candy
or cakes or any of that tempting stuff.  Controlled amounts.  Only get
half of a cart full.  Enough that if you stuff yourself on it, it will be
gone in 48 hours.

Then buy the materials for a week of Induction, because after this you're
going to need it.  But only one week because you *will* move on to OWL
the day it's complete.

On Saturday morning, instead of your usual Atkins high fat food, have
enough protein that you'll be able to get to lunch, then start eating your
way through your brand new mild-glycemic-index carb hoard.  Keep eating it
as much and as often as you can.  It *will* trigger cravings.  That's why
you prepared your quantities in advance.  Don't go shopping at all.  Eat
enough carbs that you're shocked.  Eat enough carbs that you feel that old
insulin rush, the blood sugar swings, and feed yourself carbs to hold up
your blood sugar.  (Diabetics shouldn't do this, I just thought of that
now).  At this point you're only safety net is having only so much on hand,
on having your Induction food on hand, and the decision in advance that
you will not buy more.  During the day have enough protein that you have
enough.  You want to trigger carb cravings only, not protein cravings too.

On Sunday morning, do it again.  Ridiculous amounts of carbs.  Eat until
you run out.  Have enough protein for normal meals.

By Monday morning you'll be having carb cravings galore.  That's intended.
You'll have gained several pounds of water, that's the deal with carbing up.
You'll have stored a couple of pounds of new fat, that's the price of
abusing Induction for so long.  And by Monday all you'll have around you
is your pre-purchased store of Induction foods.  Pefect timing.  Use a
week of Induction to turn the carb cravings back off.  You likely picked
at least one trigger food because you had to guess.  Use a week of Induction
to turn off those cravings.

The next Monday, you'll be finished with the process.  Move on to OWL that
breakfast.  25 that week.  30 the next.  35 the next.  Stay on that increase
schedule until you spend a week out of ketosis.  Your shiney new CCLL will
be 5-10 under the amount that had you out of ketosis for a full week.  It
will be different from your original CCLL (mine changed 10 down from 50 to
40 and then spent several years drifting back up to 50), but since you never
found your CCLL the first time you won't have any way to know that.

This process is tough, but I think it's less tough that Dr A's reversal
diet.  It's two days of ridiculous carb levels and cravings not two weeks.
This process utilizes newer science on leptin.  The hormone leptin is
released by fat.  The more fat the more leptin.  Leptin controls fat
metabolism; it turns ketosis up or down.  That's why folks with more to
lose lose it faster and folks with under 10 pounds to lose need to resort
to low calories to drive off the last 10 pounds.  The deal is leptin
release is also throttled by the most carbs you've eaten in the last
(unknown and different for every person) length of time.  Stay at 20 too
long, and eventually your leptin gets throttled no matter that you still
have fat to lose.  But doing this controlled carb refeed gives you a very
high most recent carb intake.

It's the same reason folks get a whoosh after a cheat, but this is a
carefully controlled attack on the same metabolic mechanism.  Where a cheat
just happens to hit the mechanism by mistake, this process does it knowing
the metabolic mechanism is there to attack.

You won't find this in any book.  It's Doug Freyburger's Controlled Carb
Refeed Leptin Reset process.  I noticed the post-cheat whooshes, I noticed
the stalls on extended Induction, I added them together, found the basic
science that caused them both, and I deviced the method.  The only
references you'll be able to find on it are the ones I used to devise it
in the first place.  If anyone finds the same method anywhere else, I would
love to know someone else has followed the same path and reached the same
conclusion.

Good luck.  Control it.  Reverse the metabolic damage.  Then move on to OWL
and resume your loss.
Martha Gallagher - 13 Jan 2004 23:01 GMT
> > > To find the source of the 6 month limit, go to the 1993 edition, look up
> > > "reversal diet" in the index, and start reading a page before that for
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> zero.  There's only a page about it.  No point in buying a whole book
> for that.  Unless you *like* getting books.

Well. . . not that I need any more.

Technically, I'm not an induction abuser, since I really started out with
Protein Power and then borrowed ideas from Atkins that seemed helpful. I
did spend some time on a fairly strict induction style regimen, but then I
relaxed it to allow a greater variety of veggies and add some fruits. I
then gave myself an upper limit of ~30-40 carbs/day. But since I really
like low carb eating, there have been quite a number of days when I wasn't
particularly near my max.

So, technically, you wouldn't think it was possible that I had crashed my
metabolism. But, ever since I did a very low calorie diet for 9 months
when I was in college, my metabolism seems to be wired that I can lose for
a while but then my metabolism panics. I gave myself a period when I
wasn't trying to lose, just coast at maintenance for a while, but it
doesn't seem to have helped. Of course, I know there are those who will
say that this isn't possible and that I just eat too much. Hard to know.

> > In the meantime, would you mind giving a synopsis of the reversal diet? I
> > think I need it.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> else.  It's a major purge and you'll be famished the entire time from the
> insulin release.

It sounds nice except for not being able to mix the fruits into some nice,
full-fat yogurt. I think it would get old very fast, though.

> But Dr Atkins devised that because he didn't know about how the hormone
> leptin works.  There's an easier, more skills based method to reset your
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> at least one trigger food because you had to guess.  Use a week of Induction
> to turn off those cravings.

Serendipity. I actually did almost exactly that over Christmas. Christmas
eve day and Christmas days, I ate everything I wanted. No petit four was
safe. Then, on the 26th, I put myself back on a slightly modified
induction. It was slightly modified in that I was traveling in the
afternoon and so had atkins bars for dinner and a snack. But, other than
that, I was perfect. Well, and I ignore the limitation on salad. As far as
I'm concerned it isn't possible to eat too much lettuce.

Walking around Penn Station waiting for my train, I had some abstract
cravings in the sense of smelling the donuts and thinking it would be nice
to have some. But, I had no impulse to actually go and buy them. Other
than that, no temptation whatsoever to go off plan. None of the carby
things I ate during that period were better than something I could legally
have on low carb (well, the cream puffs, but you could do a pretty decent
low carb version without too much trouble).

> The next Monday, you'll be finished with the process.  Move on to OWL that
> breakfast.  25 that week.  30 the next.  35 the next.  Stay on that increase
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 40 and then spent several years drifting back up to 50), but since you never
> found your CCLL the first time you won't have any way to know that.

Except for having spent 2 weeks instead of 1, did that, too. I wasn't
testing for ketones in induction, so technically I don't have a baseline,
but if I'm positive today, as I expect I will be, I'll assume that if I'm
in ketosis at 25, I was at 20 as well.

So far, all I've lost is the water weight that I'd picked up, but I'm
experienced enough to know that doesn't mean anything either way.

My pajamas are looser, though. <g>

> This process is tough, but I think it's less tough that Dr A's reversal
> diet.  It's two days of ridiculous carb levels and cravings not two weeks.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> You won't find this in any book.  It's Doug Freyburger's Controlled Carb
> Refeed Leptin Reset process.  I noticed the post-cheat whooshes, I noticed
                            (^tm)
> the stalls on extended Induction, I added them together, found the basic
> science that caused them both, and I deviced the method.  The only
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Good luck.  Control it.  Reverse the metabolic damage.  Then move on to OWL
> and resume your loss.

Thanks. Now the only problem for me is finding ways to get up to 25
consistently while still keeping my calories in my goal range.

Martha

Signature

Begin where you are - but don't end there.

Laureen - 10 Jan 2004 22:17 GMT
> > > "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in
>  message news:<4IKLb.1059$wf1.738@edtnps89>...
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> Patty

I live on induction. While I eat more than the foods permitted on
induction, I maintain 20 to 25 carbs. I have to b/c of my metabolic
resistance. I dont lose if I eat 40 or 50. I have only been back on
for 3 weeks and I am not yet exercising but as soon as I get my fat
a.s moving again I may be able to add 5 more. Laureen
414/ who the hell knows I goofed up/ 346 last time/200
Doug Freyburger - 10 Jan 2004 19:49 GMT
> > My guestion is..How long is it safe to stay on induction?

Six months unless you are under the direct medical supervision of
someone at the atkins Center or who has similar low carb experience.
Straight from the book.

> I know the
> > book says you can stay on it longer if you are severly
> > overweight..which I am..I need to loose at least 100 lbs.

The book allows folks with 100+ to stay low longer than 14 days,
so you're allowed to if you want, up to 6 months.  But on the
average the Atkins process, the *entire* Atkins process, all 4
phases of it, work better than any fad diet variation.  Think
about it this way: Is it likely that ignoring 3/4ths of the
directions will work as well as following all of the directions?

I know you're new and desparate and you want to do the most
radical thing you can possibly think of.  You haven't had time
to realize that just going lower doesn't mean more loss.  Step
bakc and look at all of the popular low carb plans.  If less
carbs meant more loss, some of them would push you to zero, but
there's not a single well known plan that puts you under 20 at
any time under ordinary circumstances.  It simply can't be true
that less carbs means more loss no matter how temtping it is.

> It is safe to stay on induction indefinitely

No.  The 6 month limit is real and it has a real reason.  Look in
the 1993 or 1999 editions for "reversal diet" in the index.  Start
reading a page before that for context.

Dr Atkins encounted a bunch of people who abused Induction by
staying too low too long, and their CCLL crashed to zero.  He
devised the reversal diet to help reversal the metabolic damage
from this abuse.

I learned it the hard way.  I followed the entire Atkins process
for 6 months.  I moved to OWL on day 15, found my CCLL on schedule
by doing 25, 30, 35, 40 ... until I spent a week out of ketosis,
cruised at my CCLL for the rest of the 6 months, and lost 30 of
the 50 I had to lose.  THen I decided I didn't want to put in the
effort to stay up at my CCLL, so I went low.  For the next 6 months
I didn't lose (less doesn't yield more loss, no matter that it is
not obvious) and then I fell out of ketosis.  Sure enough, exactly
like the book predicted I had abused my metabolism and it had
adjusted to my food.  My body had decided I was an Inuit.

I've seen folks that this happened to in 6 months, 24 months, and
several other time frames.  Clearly 6 months is the soonest it
will happen.  But do YOU really want to find out the hard way when
your body will decide you're an Eskimo?  I assure you, dealing with
a CCLL that dropped to zero sucked big time.  At the time I didn't
know the science of the hormone leptin for how to deal with the
problem.  I don't think Dr Atkins ever learned the basic science of
it.  He just devised the "reversal diet" and it worked.
DigitalVinyl - 13 Jan 2004 03:25 GMT
>> It is safe to stay on induction indefinitely
>
>No.  The 6 month limit is real and it has a real reason.  Look in
>the 1993 or 1999 editions for "reversal diet" in the index.  Start
>reading a page before that for context.
I have the 1999 paperback and there is nothing there about a 6 month
limit before the discussion of the reversal diet.

In the 1999 paperback in the Q&A section, it says
Q: How long can a person be on 20 gms or less carbs per day?
A: As long as that person remains overweight and feels well.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
Doug Freyburger - 13 Jan 2004 15:28 GMT
> > > It is safe to stay on induction indefinitely

> >No.  The 6 month limit is real and it has a real reason.  Look in
> >the 1993 or 1999 editions for "reversal diet" in the index.  Start
> >reading a page before that for context.
>
> I have the 1999 paperback and there is nothing there about a 6 month
> limit before the discussion of the reversal diet.

So you missed the content of what I wrote.  There is a discussion of
people who abused Induction and smashed their metabolisms, showing
that Induction does in fact have a limit.  The 6 month number is listed
in other parts of the book.

Do you in fact deny that it says that people abused Induction levels and
ended up smashing their metabolisms as a result?  It's in both the 1993
and 1999 editions at the same point.  If you understand that it does in
fact report people who smashed their metabolisms by abusing extended
Induction, why do you continue to cite otherwise?

> In the 1999 paperback in the Q&A section, it says
> Q: How long can a person be on 20 gms or less carbs per day?
> A: As long as that person remains overweight and feels well.

So Dr A disagrees with himself and misses the content he put in his own
books.  Shrug, he was human.  He got stuff wrong.  He forgot his own
earlier work.  He tended to both overcomplicate issues and oversimplifiy
them.

What this means is since the book disagrees with itself we can't simply
use citations from the book to "prove" the point.  It doesn't work that
way since both sides of the issue can in fact be "proven" by citations
from the book.  Your use of this quote is flawed.  So is mine for the
same reason.

So let's step back and compare context internal to the book.  My citation
discusses people who did in fact abuse Induction and ended up smashing
their metabolisms, as cited by Dr A.  He even devised a treatment for it.
Your citation lacks any context.  It's a flip answer to a common question,
and in fact that same question is asked at many points in every edition
of the book and the answer given isn't consistant.  Nowhere in any edition
does it say "oh right, you know where it talks about folks who smashed
their metabolisms by abusing Indcution, well that didn't happen".  But
there are points where it stresses added more veggies for the extra carbs
for better longer term sucess.

But let's work on the fact that since the point can be "proved" in either
direction by citations from the book, that we need to look elsewhere.
Look elsewhere and you'll find abundant reports of people who extended
Induction forever and got sick.  Take the author's story section of the
book Carbohydrate Addicts Diet where Dr Rachel Heller reports exactly
that happened to her.  Take any anti web site that has folks reporting
their story and nearly all who had problems got those problems after over
6 months of Induction.  Take medical warnings that forever staying low
causes problems (yes, this is a biased source and as such weaker than my
use of Dr Rachel Heller, but it cooberates her story).  Far more people
than just Dr A report problems with extended Induction.

IF you're under direct medical supervision, and IF the doctor doing it
is very familiar with low carb issues, go right ahead and extend Induction
past 6 months.  IF after 6 months you still have 100+ to lose and you're
still losing, go right ahead and extend Induction past 6 months.  But
if you get the predicted result of falling out of ketosis, come right on
back here to ask me how to deal with it.

I saw the contridictions in the book, the fact that Dr A disagrees with
himself.  And I learned the answers from other sources to resolve that
disagreement.
DigitalVinyl - 13 Jan 2004 23:32 GMT
>> > > It is safe to stay on induction indefinitely
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>that Induction does in fact have a limit.  The 6 month number is listed
>in other parts of the book.
Well I was interested in reading the context of this discussion,
however, it is *NOT* where you indicate it to be in the 1999 edition
of Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution.  Reversal diet is discussed on
288-290. I started back on page 284, and guess what.. I can read.

The pages prior to reversal discuss
284 ... Finding substitututes for food you have a passion for...
285 ... The second strategy, changing your daily gm level to allow
high carb days and variances
287 ... Binges caused by bending the rules, recognizing them, stopping
them
288 ... Binging with Intent: You Might want to try a Reversal Diet

No where in the text leading up  to the Reversal diet does it discuss
abuses of the induction diet and people who have "smashed their
metabolism".

In fact, on 289

"After many months on a diet which works by virtue of forcing the body
to take inefficient metabolic pathways, and thus dissipating hundreds
of calories as heat (which presumably is what happens on a strict
low-carbohydrate diet), the body may begin to adapt by becoming more
efficient, thereby slowing the rate of weight loss.  Don't panix as
you read this --- this adaptation to the lipolytic pathway has never
been scientifically demonstrated. Most of you will be able to reach
your goal weight and stay there without ever noticing the adaptation
phenomenom. But some of you will get the sense that the rate of weight
loss has slowed inordinately. You should consider a period of time on
a reversal diet."

>Do you in fact deny that it says that people abused Induction levels and
>ended up smashing their metabolisms as a result?  
Uhm.. until I read it for myself, yes. Net lore and misinformation is
common. And the pages you cite do not discuss a group of people who
suffered from "abuse".  The above quote even says that such an
adaptation is not proven to exist yet.

I believe the body will adapt to any situation it is presented with.
However the terms "abuse" and "smashed metabolism" seem to indicate
that people are wrong to stay on induction, and have damaged
something. Even though the diet says that you can stay on induction if
your need to drop weight is still great.

>But
>there are points where it stresses added more veggies for the extra carbs
>for better longer term sucess.
And for a natural source of vitamins, and to ease digestion and
constipation, and to provide a more balanced diet. Naturally OWL
should include more of these.

>But let's work on the fact that since the point can be "proved" in either
>direction by citations from the book, that we need to look elsewhere.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>use of Dr Rachel Heller, but it cooberates her story).  Far more people
>than just Dr A report problems with extended Induction.
I will looks for other sources of information.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 10 Jan 2004 16:02 GMT
> My guestion is..How long is it safe to stay on induction?  I know the book
> says you can stay on it longer if you are severly overweight..which I
> am..I need to loose at least 100 lbs.
>
> I thank you in advance for your help and support

you can stay at induction levels of carbs for quite a while if you want
to, but after the first two weeks you don't have to limit yourself to
the list of induction foods any longer.  you can start eating other
stuff.  the problem with starting to eat other stuff is that some of it
is higher in carbs than the foods on the induction list.  

also be aware that after a while some people stop losing on induction
levels of carbs and find that their weight loss restarts after they
increase their carbs.  and be aware that calories count.
 
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.