Day 4 of induction and I'm actually feeling pretty good.
But maybe that's because there's a large salmon steak sitting
frying in olive oil right now though, and the smell is wafting in
from the kitchen :-)

slr

that

I'm going to amend my own post here to say that some folks suggest eating
more around 10-12 times their body weight in calories and only adjusting
downwards if they find they are not losing.  I have decided not to follow
this advice, but that doesn't mean my approach is right.  So I wanted to
mention it - it's discussed in the thread I mentioned previously.  Mainly I
just can't see where I would find upwards of 2200 calories a day.  I am
already eating all the fat I want and probably even a bit more protein than
I need.  But other folks might find it easier to get there.

But that's kind of the miracle of low carb - I never imagined I would be on
a diet in which I was struggling to eat *enough* calories.

carla
237/218/165?

I don't believe that Lyle endorses Eades.  I follow a diet more
restrictive than either Atkins or Eades, but that is my personal
preference.

---
Howard Lee Harkness
Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net

 SBD just restricts different acronutrients than Atkins does.  The idea of
replacing dietary fat with modified food starch due to severe sat fat
restriction is, well, disgusting.

If you worry about fat, then the Zone is healthier than SBD in this regard, and
emphasizes healthier carbs.

Susan

Actually Atkins gives a very systematic approach to dealing with carbs.
It's only his writing skills that keep the story from coming out of the
book.  Read all of the versions, and the story comes out better.  In the
1972 DADR (no New in its title) he was clear that finding CCL was entirely
about the ketosis with no reference to current loss rates at all.  In
later editions he lost that clarity but he never did abandon it.  He just
went off into left field with confusing wording that used ketosis and loss
interchangibly as if they meant the exact same thing.  If you accept the
1972 edition that it is entirely about ketosis, and if you accept that he
never actually abandoned that stance just lost clarity in his explanation
of it, then using the ketosis is a completely systematic approach for the
lossing phases:

1) Induction, deliberate undershoot to get into ketosis quickly.
2a) OWL, find CCLL by increasing your carb quota on schedule until you
spend a week out of ketosis.  Your CCLL is 5-10 under that.
2b) OWL, use the metabolic loophole of CCLL and ketosis to lose without
cravings.
3) Premaint, find CCLM by using a similar process as 2a, but without the
clearcut measurement of in or out of ketosis.  Hence use onset of cravings
or shift in water retention swing.
4) Maintenance, use CCLL and CCLM to not need to count anything but carbs
to keep it off.

Using ketosis rather than weekly loss rates, this is a completely
systematic approach for dealing with carbs.  It is half of the Atkins
process in a nutshell.  The other half, the food intolerance part, is
not systematic to anywhere near that extent.

But consider what would happen if you used week to week loss rates
instead.  Simply put, the time scale for loss is month to month not
week to week, so everyone would have an artificially low CCLL.  About
80% pause in weeks 3 and/or 4, so about 80% would have a false CCLL
of 20 and get in trouble 6 or more months down the line.  Many stall
if they stay at 20 yet do fine if they up their carbs, so that entire
set of people would think Atkins failed for them when all they did was
pick one word "loss" over the other "ketosis".

Nope, that one choice of wording from ketosis to loss has far too many
negative consequences.  It converts a high-yield objective process into
a lower yield adhoc process.

Dr Atkins gave simply guidelines for types of fat but not for amounts of
fat.  But Dr A wasn't a scientist and in his later years he failed to keep
up on the scientific advances that happened.  His system for carbs beats
any other out there, but his system for fat was very simple and brute force.

Bad, good, better, best.  When it comes to fats, that's all there is to
the Atkins system.  Avoid the bad and screw any comments about the other
types because all the studies up to the point where Dr A started to fall
behind on the science used high carbers and where therefore invalid.  But
there are some implicit parts in there that he never discussed.

Bad.  Transfats.  Avoid as much as possible.  Neat and simple.

Good.  Saturated fats.  Do not avoid.  Historically no heart attacks
occured before the introduction of refined flour, refined sugar and
transfats.  Since people at that time eat huge amoounts of saturated
fats in the form of lard and tallow, saturated fats must not be harmfull
to anyone on a low carb diet or a low glycemic index diet.  Neat and
simple, but has the recent science confirmed it?  After all, records
of heart attacks could be lacking from poor medical records and poor
autopsies.  After all the AMA was formed about the same time as refined
flour was introduced so their standards of record keeping didn't exist
yet.  Did heart attack deaths occur but weren't recorded?  If so Dr A's
assumption is invalidated.

Better.  Monounsaturated fats.  Use when appropriate.  Since the human
body can neither store nor make monounsaturated fats, they are either
burned for fuel or excreted as waste.  Thus they don't effect cholesterol
levels even in high carbers.  Kinda hard to knock that.

Best.  Polyunsaturated fats, especially the ones with essential fatty
acids.  Use when possible.  There are two categories of fatty acids that
must be eaten for health, omega-3 and omega-9.  Dr A knew that and
encouraged the use of polyunsaturated oils.

The unspoken part: If you cook several slices of bacon, on Atkins you
should use every drop of the oil to fry you eggs and use the eggs to
sop up the oil.  Or should you?  Given the above list, it is well
within the bounds of the Atkins process to drain off the saturated
bacon fat and replace it with an equal amount of olive oil or nut oil,
but Dr A never discussed doing so.  On one hand he was busy fighting
the battle against the anti-fat fanatics and mentioning the above
would be seen as weakening his case.  On the other hand if you're in
the pro-Atkins camp and think he won the fat battle, mentioning the
above improves his process.

On 11-Jan-2004, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> says:

Sorry, I don't know. His book is obviously aimed at a lay audience, so he
avoids scientific jargon and doesn't give references (other than for the
recipes).

Agatston is not entirely clear on this issue. In the passage I referred to,
he talks only about the practical issue of "sticking to it." Elsewhere he
seems to say it is best to eat some carbs generally, but they must be good
ones (whole grains, etc.). He prefers people not eat very sweet fruits
(pineapple, bananas, etc.) and avoid carrots, potatoes and other highly
starchy foods. Overall his diet is not as high in fat as Atkins. For me,
it's a nice compromise; but I've never been more than a bit overweight. I
don't know how it works with people who have more severe obesity problems.

Note that Agatston plays down the dangers of ketosis. In general he treats
both Atkins and Ornish with respect.

Or, as W. Buffet was fond of saying, "Never ask a barber if you need a
haircut."

---
Howard Lee Harkness
Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com
Medigap insurance information: http://medigap.supremesite.net