Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004
Bread induction question
|
|
Thread rating:  |
GlueGum - 27 Jan 2004 19:55 GMT I'm 22 y/o, male, 5'11" tall and weigh 170lbs. I've never really ate healthy and I haven't really done any excerises since high school. I'm going on this diet to get rid of my slightly chunky stomach and chest (that and my metabolism won't go this strong forever). My question, is it okay for me to eat Atkins white bread during induction? I've read that NO bread is necessary, but I've also read that the low carb bread is okay.
Anybody know which way I should go? Thanks.
Ignoramus14140 - 27 Jan 2004 20:16 GMT > I'm 22 y/o, male, 5'11" tall and weigh 170lbs. I've never really ate > healthy and I haven't really done any excerises since high school. I'm Congratulations for being at normal weight!
I am also 5'11", 173 lbs.
Also, congratulations for not waiting until you become obese and for wanting to keep a good body.
> going on this diet to get rid of my slightly chunky stomach and > chest (that and my metabolism won't go this strong forever). My [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Anybody know which way I should go? Thanks. GlueGum, you are at normal weight, 22 year old, and have done no exercises since high school. You are concerned about your "chunky stomach". Well, obviously it is legitimate to want to look better, but I am wondering why you are focused on diet and not on exercise.
Wouldn't exercise, combined with eating right, replace some of your fat with muscle better than just going on a diet alone?
If you plan on exercising and simply have not mentioned it, tyhen my comment does not apply.
What makes you so convinced that you need to go on Atkins to lose a few pounds? And what makes you sure that you will lose fat pounds, as opposed to
Can you lose weight through eating better, eating less and exercising more?
What's your thought process here, why do you want to go on Atkins specifically? One thing that Atkins mentions, is that you have to remain lowcarbing for life to keep weight off. I would be greatly surprised if lowcarbing for lif makes any sense for you or that you can stick to it.
I suggest dropping by misc.fitness.weights and asking a bit of their feedback. They are kind of rough, testosterone crazed people (or trying to look such) but they could be helpful.
Re: Atkins bread during induction. No, only approved foods (from the list) are allowed on induction.
i
GlueGum - 27 Jan 2004 21:36 GMT Thanks a lot for your thorough reply. I actually do plan on doing situps (it's still WAY too cold here in NY to do any running). But one thing I suffer from is man-tits (lol, not extreme, but noticable). I checked around the misc.fitness ng's and they said that exercising this area will make the fat harder and more noticable. What I have to do is get rid of that fat. My father's been on Atkins for years and he dropped his manboobs through low carb.
PJx - 28 Jan 2004 00:24 GMT >Thanks a lot for your thorough reply. I actually do plan on doing situps >(it's still WAY too cold here in NY to do any running). But one thing I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >My father's been on Atkins for years and he dropped his manboobs through low >carb. You also need to cut way back on smoking the weed. That's the most likely source of your boobs.
I agree with the exercising and weight training. That and a normal healthy diet. PJ
GlueGum - 28 Jan 2004 12:40 GMT I don't smoke anything, and I've never taken a drug.
Ignoramus14140 - 28 Jan 2004 04:33 GMT > Thanks a lot for your thorough reply. I actually do plan on doing situps > (it's still WAY too cold here in NY to do any running). But one thing I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My father's been on Atkins for years and he dropped his manboobs through low > carb. Exercising well and lifting heavy things will do your body good. Along with a sensible diet -- with not too processed food, meat, vegetables, fish, etc etc, you will likely keep way away from obesity for life, and look good.
Re: man boobs, fat in that area is difficult to get rid of... But with exercise, you will look more muscular etc.
i
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 28 Jan 2004 02:18 GMT > I'm 22 y/o, male, 5'11" tall and weigh 170lbs. I've never really ate > healthy and I haven't really done any excerises since high school. I'm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Anybody know which way I should go? Thanks. bread is not on the list of induction foods. that means you can't eat it while you're doing induction.
i don't know what you've read, but it sure doesn't sound like you've read the rules of induction. here's a link to them so that you can get a better idea of what you're trying to do:
http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-325810.html
Sas - 28 Jan 2004 03:20 GMT > bread is not on the list of induction foods. that means you can't eat > it while you're doing induction. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-325810.html I had always thought that bread wasn't included in induction, but I recently picked up a free Atkins booklet at Rios, our local "low carb superstore" that included a menu for "a week on induction". In the menu, there was bread for breakfast on day one, cereal on day three, a reuben sandwich (one slice) for lunch on day 4, pancakes on day 5, a tortilla for lunch on day6, bread for breakfast on day 7 AND a muffin for a snack on day 7. This menu is *very* different from what we had read and done when we completed induction back in September
Is this part of the "new" lower fat approach? It is an Atkins publication from Atkins Nutritionals, NOT something that was created by the store.
Sas 156/138/130 ish
John 230/197/ 180
LC since 9/12/03
Sas
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 28 Jan 2004 05:56 GMT > > bread is not on the list of induction foods. that means you can't eat > > it while you're doing induction. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Is this part of the "new" lower fat approach? It is an Atkins publication > from Atkins Nutritionals, NOT something that was created by the store. beats the hell out of me. the website specifically says NO BREAD.
Sas - 28 Jan 2004 13:21 GMT > beats the hell out of me. the website specifically says NO BREAD. I know, I just emailed customer support at the Atkins website for clarification. The entire week's food plan makes no sense to me. I went back to the website and checked off the foods that aren't allowed in induction against the food plan in the booklet. There are multiple banned foods EACH day for ALL seven days.
When the newbies come in with questions, I hope some of the old timers will cut them a little slack. When Atkins nutritionals can't even be consistent with what they're publishing, is it any wonder that people just starting this WOE have to turn to this newsgroup??
Sas
Ignoramus25969 - 28 Jan 2004 14:06 GMT >> beats the hell out of me. the website specifically says NO BREAD. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is it any wonder that people just > starting this WOE have to turn to this newsgroup?? Let's use some common sense. Atkins nutritionals is a company that has little to do with the now deceased Dr Atkins.
Atkins nutritionals is a commercial company and its managers are probably compensated for how much money it is making.
It is not likely that atkins nutritionals managers are compensated for how well low carb dieters are doing and how much weight they lose.
Keep this in mind when you think whose interests they serve.
i 223/174/180
Sas - 28 Jan 2004 14:13 GMT > Let's use some common sense. Atkins nutritionals is a company that has > little to do with the now deceased Dr Atkins. Agreed
> Atkins nutritionals is a commercial company and its managers are > probably compensated for how much money it is making. Once again I have to agree with this.
> It is not likely that atkins nutritionals managers are compensated for > how well low carb dieters are doing and how much weight they lose. > > Keep this in mind when you think whose interests they serve. 'tis true, but at the same time, I think it's important to realize that some of the newer LCers may be getting bad information and it would be extremely helpful for some to grasp the "teachable moment" rather than treat them harshly. People are trying to learn and ATKINS, in any form is considered the authority by people who are finding their way, they don't differentiate the commercial company from the writings of Dr Atkins.Is it any wonder they're confused, when the company making the endorsed products isn't getting it right? I'm waiting to see what they have to say about all of this. The website said I could expect a reply in three days, an email I just received said it would be more like five days.
Sas
Ignoramus25969 - 28 Jan 2004 14:35 GMT > "Ignoramus25969" <ignoramus25969@NOSPAM.25969.invalid> wrote in message >> Let's use some common sense. Atkins nutritionals is a company that has [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > a reply in three days, an email I just received said it would be more > like five days. Let's see what they say, yes.
I think that commercialization of low-carbing -- meaning that numerous companies put out various products for low carb dieters -- will severely damage credibility of low carbing as a method to control appetite and lose weight.
It is quite frequently the case that low carb versions of popular foods, such as junk food bars etc, are either lacking in taste, or else they are made of products that are not low carb (such as maltitol) and are simply deceptive products.
It is not that easy to figure out, for a junk food addict, that they are being scammed. It takes quite a bit of reading and thinking, and may be more than the level of effort of an average dieter.
So, the net result is, stupid fat person goes low carbing, buys low carb labeled "goodies", does not lose weight, does not eliminate cravings, and gives up low carbing as a WOL because "it does not work". Which is the final message that that person will get. Example: preesi.
It is sad, because the original idea of low carbing is not bad if not taken to extremes and used by people for whom it is appropriate (obese people with insulin issues).
What low carbing really is about is eliminating junk food, eliminating sugar, reducing flour and starchy stuff, and eating plenty of natural stuff like meat, fish, and non-starchy vegetables. That's my reading of DANDR. I agree with it, although I did not go as low as DANDR recommends in my carb intake, instead of doing low carbing I simply lowered my carb intake a lot.
What commercial companies are pushing on us, is substituting high carb junk food and so on with fake imitations that ostensibly are low carb bu in reality, are not. In any case, those imitations have little to do with wholesome foods that DANDR recommends.
A person who does not eat wholesome stuff during dieting, is likely to develop nutrient deficiencies that may either result in cravings, or in health damage. It is fairly difficult to obtain all necessary nutrients and vitamins from food if you are eating at a relatively low caloric level, and if you displace wholesome stuff with highly processed foods, it is even more difficult. Unfortunately, bioavailability of vitamin supplements is much worse than availability of nutrients from foods.
i
Crafting Mom - 28 Jan 2004 14:55 GMT > So, the net result is, stupid fat person goes low carbing, buys low > carb labeled "goodies", does not lose weight, does not eliminate > cravings, and gives up low carbing as a WOL because "it does not > work". That's because I've seen many people (not all) who just seem to think that it's ALL about carb numbers. They don't understand WHY they must learn to live without certain foods. They simply want to eat the SAME foods as before but with a "lower carb count". They think that lowering carb numbers is the entire gist of the way of eating. That's the same mentality used by the low-fat movement (percentage of fat calories, don't care what's in it, as long as there's no big bad fat in it), only it seems to have transferred into the low-carb movement, sadly enough.
That's a perfectly normal and understandable way to think. It's only natural to want to hang on to things we enjoy even if it is not good for us. I recently fell off something that was working MORE than perfectly for me by allowing myself to think "Well, THEY get to eat such and such, why shouldn't *I*?" My inner brat took over and I chose the wrong way (for me).
To be successful I have to think deeper than just the surface "rules". I constantly have to ask myself the question, "What IS food?" "WHY am I putting this into my body?". Things that I eat DO in fact, move past those initial taste buds, and then the rest of my body, which doesn't CARE how it tastes, has to deal with it.
> What low carbing really is about is eliminating junk food, eliminating > sugar, reducing flour and starchy stuff, and eating plenty of natural > stuff like meat, fish, and non-starchy vegetables. That's my reading > of DANDR. That was mine, too, and of the other low-carb plans I have read about.
> I agree with it, although I did not go as low as DANDR > recommends in my carb intake, instead of doing low carbing I simply > lowered my carb intake a lot. I don't count carbs. I eat more liberally from the list of foods that are natural and low carb. It saves me the work of having to do the "net carb" thang. Taking the complications away from eating works wonders for me.
Ignoramus25969 - 28 Jan 2004 15:10 GMT >> So, the net result is, stupid fat person goes low carbing, buys low >> carb labeled "goodies", does not lose weight, does not eliminate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that it's ALL about carb numbers. They don't understand WHY they > must learn to live without certain foods. Right.
> They simply want to eat the SAME foods as before but with a "lower > carb count". They think that lowering carb numbers is the entire > gist of the way of eating. That's the same mentality used by the > low-fat movement (percentage of fat calories, don't care what's in > it, as long as there's no big bad fat in it), only it seems to have > transferred into the low-carb movement, sadly enough. I guess that dumb people do dumb things, whether they are low carbing or low fatting.
That said, for some people low fatting probably could work well if they stuck to natural foods. For the same reason as most restrictive diets work -- they eliminate a lot of tasty stuff that people tend to overeat and create some imbalance in the carbs/fats/protein percentages that reduces appetite. But, if you start gorging on low fat cold cereals, low fat pasta etc, you want to eat endlessly because there are not enough nutrients in those foods.
That said, I think that lowering carbs is a safer approach than low fatting, because if you do low carb right, you at least get all nutrients. Whereas with low fatting, you miss out essential fatty acids and fat soluble vitamins.
> That's a perfectly normal and understandable way to think. It's > only natural to want to hang on to things we enjoy even if it is > not good for us. I recently fell off something that was working > MORE than perfectly for me by allowing myself to think "Well, > THEY get to eat such and such, why shouldn't *I*?" My inner > brat took over and I chose the wrong way (for me). I am especially curious as to what was happening them. I have not falled off the diet wagon, but I always wonder what it might be like.
>> I agree with it, although I did not go as low as DANDR >> recommends in my carb intake, instead of doing low carbing I simply [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the "net carb" thang. Taking the complications away from eating > works wonders for me. Right.
i
Jean B. - 28 Jan 2004 17:34 GMT > Let's use some common sense. Atkins nutritionals is a company that has > little to do with the now deceased Dr Atkins. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Keep this in mind when you think whose interests they serve. That would be a rather short-sighted approach though--not saying I think what you are saying is wrong, not at all. But if people don't see success, then they will not stick with this WOE. And if they hear of enough people who have failed, others will not even try it.
 Signature Jean B.
Ignoramus25969 - 28 Jan 2004 17:42 GMT >> Let's use some common sense. Atkins nutritionals is a company that has >> little to do with the now deceased Dr Atkins. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > they hear of enough people who have failed, others will not even > try it. Well, I don't know, perhaps what Atkins Nutritionals is doing does maximise their shareholder value. After all, what else can they sell other than junk food. So they try to sell as much as they can while the going is good.
But yes, I agree that it is not helping lowcarbing as an approach to nutrition.
i
Sas - 28 Jan 2004 18:09 GMT Well, I don't know, perhaps what Atkins Nutritionals is doing does
> maximise their shareholder value. After all, what else can they sell > other than junk food. So they try to sell as much as they can while > the going is good. > > But yes, I agree that it is not helping lowcarbing as an approach to > nutrition. Exactly, they have to compete for their share of the market, and since their shareholders have a financial stake, and may not follow a LC lifestyle, they don't realize how much they're compromising their integrity, or perhaps they don't care. With the explosion of LC products (most of which, like the Ragu and Lawry products are mostly sugar out, splenda in and relabel) and South Beach, it feels to me like a "reach", a way to compete with WOEs that appear to some to be" less depriving". Most of the stuff is awful, whoever coined the term Frankenfood was absolutely right. When we first came off of induction, I bought all sorts of products to try. This past weekend, I pitched four boxes of rolls and cereals that were simply too gross to eat more than once.
I think your post in reply to mine earlier in the thread really hit the nail on the head.
Sas
Ignoramus25969 - 28 Jan 2004 18:42 GMT > "Ignoramus25969" <ignoramus25969@NOSPAM.25969.invalid> wrote in message >> Well, I don't know, perhaps what Atkins Nutritionals is doing does [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a LC lifestyle, they don't realize how much they're compromising > their integrity, or perhaps they don't care. My guess is that they do not care about their integrity, and because they do not care, they probably don't even reaize how much it is hurt. In my eyes, the name of Atkins no longer adds credibility to anything.
> I think your post in reply to mine earlier in the thread really > hit the nail on the head. Thanks, it is nice to see someone intelligent agree with me once in a great while:)
i
PJx - 28 Jan 2004 19:02 GMT >> "Ignoramus25969" <ignoramus25969@NOSPAM.25969.invalid> wrote in message >>> Well, I don't know, perhaps what Atkins Nutritionals is doing does [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >great while:) >i I'm not intelligent, but I believe you guys are absolutely right on in this discussion thread. I've bought one Atkins product so far (maple syrup) and deeply regret that purchase. But I'm still giving most of their web site thumbs up as its free and available to all and does not mention, much less push their diet products.
As an example, I'm talking about the following sites: atkins fat fast http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/21-237659.html atkins phase 1 Induction http://atkinscenter.com/howto/phase1.html atkins getting started http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/15-238691.html Moving Beyond Berries http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2003/2/10-469820.html atkins phase 2 OWL ongoing weight loss http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/15-451522.html
PJ
Sas - 28 Jan 2004 19:19 GMT > I'm not intelligent, *ahhh, don't say that ;-))
but I believe you guys are absolutely right on
> in this discussion thread. I've bought one Atkins product so far > (maple syrup) and deeply regret that purchase. But I'm still giving > most of their web site thumbs up as its free and available to all and > does not mention, much less push their diet products. The website IS a wonderful resource, DH and I have been referring friends who are considering LC but don't want to buy the book (and their not getting ours!) for some preliminary research. The problem here is that the "company" is evidently shifting direction and eventually this resource is going to *have* to change to reflect that. They can't be publicizing one thing in print media and have a website that completely refutes what they're saying. My feeling is that the site will eventually reflect those changes and only those of us who have editions of DANDR that predate it will know how it was really intended to be followed.
The only Atkins products that have been worth the trouble for us is the shakes for DH, and the teriyaki sauce isn't too bad.
Sas
Pat Paris - 28 Jan 2004 19:33 GMT >The website IS a wonderful resource, DH and I have been referring >friends who are considering LC but don't want to buy the book If you have a Vitamin Shoppe nearby (store locator at http://www.vitaminshop.com), they can borrow books for up to 60 days at no charge. If they decide to keep it, DANDR in paperback is a whopping $4.50 there. While I think the Atkins website is a nice resource, I believe the book is really necessary to get the full picture of what the Atkins approach is all about. It seems to me that anyone who can't or won't invest 5 dollars and a few hours of reading is not likely to be motivated enough to be successful at this approach. IMO, of course.
Sas - 28 Jan 2004 20:07 GMT > If you have a Vitamin Shoppe nearby (store locator at > http://www.vitaminshop.com), they can borrow books for up to 60 days [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is not likely to be motivated enough to be successful at this > approach. IMO, of course. Thanks for the tip, I'll pass that along. I hear what you're saying about the book, but after having lost two copies, we now just give people the url for the website AND strongly recommend that they get a copy. Most of the women who work with DH "tried" induction for a day or two and switched to South Beach because "Atkins was TOO hard". What we've found is that people who don't want to buy the book just aren't ready to do the work.
Sas
Jean B. - 28 Jan 2004 17:19 GMT > I know, I just emailed customer support at the Atkins website for > clarification. The entire week's food plan [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is it any wonder that people just > starting this WOE have to turn to this newsgroup?? I agree about the confusion now. I was looking at a new (revised) Atkins cookbook today, and I noticed at least one recipe with bread in it that they claimed could be eaten during induction. Maybe it's the same crew that now claims you can eat all those Atkins products on induction. Rather self-serving advice.
 Signature Jean B.
Cailleachschilde - 28 Jan 2004 06:56 GMT >Is this part of the "new" lower fat approach? It is an Atkins publication >from Atkins Nutritionals, NOT something that was created by the store. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >LC since 9/12/03 http://atkins.com/Archive/2004/1/20-407355.html Quote: Atkins has not changed. The basic tenets of the Atkins Nutritional ApproachTM (ANA), consistent since 1972, are to control the intake of carbohydrates, avoid refined carbs (like sugar and white flour), eat a balance of fats (including saturated fat but not trans fats) and consume a variety of protein sources, such as red meat, fish, poultry and tofu. Saturated fat remains a valuable part of the ANA. There is absolutely no scientific research to support any claims that eating red meat and saturated fat as part of your Atkins program is anything other than beneficial. These protocols have been consistently reinforced as safe, effective and beneficial and have been further supported by 17 studies released over the last three years.
I don't know anything about that booklet. In DANDR and the website, bread and cereal are not allowed on induction.
Rules of induction: http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-325810.html
Acceptable Foods: http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-325810.html
Sas - 28 Jan 2004 13:10 GMT > Quote: > Atkins has not changed. The basic tenets of the Atkins Nutritional ApproachTM > (ANA), consistent since 1972, are to control the intake of carbohydrates, avoid > refined carbs (like sugar and white flour), eat a balance of fats (including > saturated fat but not trans fats) and consume a variety of protein sources, > such as red meat, fish, poultry and tofu. <snip>
> I don't know anything about that booklet. In DANDR and the website, bread and > cereal are not allowed on induction. I've read all of that as well, and I *thought* I understood what they were saying *until* I picked up this booklet. I went back to the website, and this is what they list there as a "week of induction"
http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/14-373858.html
It's what I remember from our experience in September as well. However, the New Year's Resolutionistas are out in stores and picking up this Atkins created booklet and coming here with questions that our longtimers are finding exasperating and the newbies are finding very confusing. WE know that bread is not acceptable during induction, as well as certain condiments,but Atkins has somehow changed their position on that, which flies in the face of everything that was written in DANDR. There are so many things included in the booklet meal plan that are not allowed in induction according to the website and NDR. Is there a rewrite in our future???
Sas
Doug Freyburger - 28 Jan 2004 21:57 GMT > I had always thought that bread wasn't included in induction, but I > recently picked up a free Atkins booklet at Rios, our local "low carb [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > muffin for a snack on day 7. This menu is *very* different from what > we had read and done when we completed induction back in September 1) Pay me a big enough comission for selling fake bread and I'll write that sort of stuff, too.
2) Dr Atkins is dead. The only way he gets to correct bozos like this is on John Edwards Crossing Over on the SciFi channel. It's been cancelled, though. No luck correcting bozos like this.
> Is this part of the "new" lower fat approach? It is an Atkins publication > from Atkins Nutritionals, NOT something that was created by the store. 3) The Atkins plan hasn't changed.
But. If you look in the recipes in the DANDR books you'll fine an occasional mistake using low carb bread anyways. Either Dr A okayed that, or he didn't notice. He was raised in a time when men never cooked, so maybe he didn't even check the stuff put into the recipe section.
|
|
|