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.

Bread induction question

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
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.