Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004
does this sound about right
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Keke3737 - 02 Mar 2004 00:25 GMT I have been doing atkins since Jan. 26th was 204.5lbs and i weighed in today at 182.5lbs. A loss of 22lbs in 36 days. I have had stalls and need to excersise more. Im happy with the loss wish it was more. I started eating fruit. Blackberries, strawberrys and blueberries because i missed fruit. I was trying to stick to induction longer but the berries were screaming out my name and I thought this is better than candy and cookies. Fruit never tasted so good!! I guess im wondering over all from people who have been on atkins does seem like a good loss. I kick myself in the as all the time because im always worried i will fail. Let me thanks Karen
AnnieBrouton - 02 Mar 2004 00:40 GMT >I have been doing atkins since Jan. 26th was 204.5lbs and i weighed in today >at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >will fail. Let me thanks >Karen Karen, I started low carbing - though did not do induction - beginning Jan. 12. Actually, the week before that I just cut out sugar and in the next wee began limiting my carbs to 50/day until I'm now doing between 30-35 carbs a day (excluding fiber). I've lost 20.5 lbs. since January 5. Personally, I think your weight loss sounds VERY good!
I generally eat a half cup of some type of berries every day - and sometimes 3/4 a cup if I have the carbs to spare. I also eat 1/8 to 1/4 cup of cantaloupe in the mornings. Even if it's just a taste, more or less, it makes me feel good. And you're right, fruit never tasted so good! Annie
Rebecca - 02 Mar 2004 00:53 GMT > I have been doing atkins since Jan. 26th was 204.5lbs and i weighed in today at > 182.5lbs. A loss of 22lbs in 36 days. I have had stalls and need to excersise [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > will fail. Let me thanks > Karen You're doing great! 22 lbs in 36 days is amazing! Add a few low glycemic carbs. Berries are good. You'll continue losing.
Isn't it wonderful how eating low carb makes normal healthy food taste so good? I have been a sugar addict all my life. Nothing was sweet enough unless it was straight sugar and full of artificial flavorings - I have been known to eat a pound of jelly bellies in one sitting! But now, I can sit down with an apple and really savor every bite. I love it.
Rebecca
Keke3737 - 02 Mar 2004 06:22 GMT Im not sure what low glycemic carbs are? and thanks for the response. Karen
Rebecca - 02 Mar 2004 16:42 GMT > Im not sure what low glycemic carbs are? > and thanks for the response. > Karen The glycemic index is a measure of how much your blood sugar goes up following ingestion of a particular food. The lower that number is the better. Here's a website I like:
http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/nmendosagi.htm
It's not really part of the Atkins diet exactly, but it can be a good tool in a generic low carb lifestyle.
Rebecca
Bob in CT - 02 Mar 2004 17:02 GMT >> Im not sure what low glycemic carbs are? >> and thanks for the response. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Rebecca It is a good tool, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Going by GI, one could eat pasta (below 50) or brown rice, but both of these made my head spin due to the insulin/blood sugar rush. Even sugar has a GI of around 60-70. What's interesting is that malititol seems to range from 30 to 90! What's the deal with that?
 Signature Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply
Rebecca - 02 Mar 2004 20:44 GMT >>> Im not sure what low glycemic carbs are? >>> and thanks for the response. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > GI of around 60-70. What's interesting is that malititol seems to range > from 30 to 90! What's the deal with that? You're right. It's just one of the many tools I use. I tend to combine all the wisdom I read about everywhere. G.I. does help me make decisions though. For example, barley is extremely low, so if I am making soup, I'll throw in a handful of that rather than a handful of rice, which is quite a bit higher. I don't follow Atkins strictly though, so take my advice with a grain of salt also. It all depends on what diet you want to follow and how you want to live the rest of your life. For me, this works pretty well.
I also agree with you about maltitol. I try to avoid the sugar alcohols myself. They taste too much like real sugar to help in my efforts to stay un-addicted to sweets, but not enough like sugar to be satisfying. I agree with most here that fake food is something to be avoided *for the most part*, although I do indulge in it occasionally.
Speaking of rice, I read an interesting article once, but then lost it so I can't show you to it, that mentioned the extreme variability in the G.I. of the different varieties of rice. Basmati seemed to have the lowest G.I. and brown rice in general was also lower than white rice. For my purposes that means that if I am going to serve rice to the family and think that I might eat some of it, I should use brown basmati.
Rebecca
NoSpam - 03 Mar 2004 23:25 GMT Thanks for explaining.
> >> Im not sure what low glycemic carbs are? > >> and thanks for the response. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > around 60-70. What's interesting is that malititol seems to range from 30 > to 90! What's the deal with that? Saffire - 02 Mar 2004 01:32 GMT > I have been doing atkins since Jan. 26th was 204.5lbs and i weighed in today at > 182.5lbs. A loss of 22lbs in 36 days. I have had stalls and need to excersise [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a good loss. I kick myself in the as all the time because im always worried i > will fail. Let me thanks It's a GREAT loss! I read your first sentence and exclaimed OUT LOUD at how unfair it is that some people (like YOU) lose a lot of weight in such a short period of time and it's taking some other people (like ME) MUCH longer. It's a VERY good loss! The rate of loss will probably slow down for you pretty soon, but it's an OUTSTANDING start -- you done good, kid!
 Signature Saffire 205/169/125 - 5'2.5" Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333
NoSpam - 02 Mar 2004 01:49 GMT Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking about low carbs?
Brian
> I have been doing atkins since Jan. 26th was 204.5lbs and i weighed in today at > 182.5lbs. A loss of 22lbs in 36 days. I have had stalls and need to excersise [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > will fail. Let me thanks > Karen Aramanth Dawe - 02 Mar 2004 03:13 GMT >Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking >about low carbs? > >Brian Induction is the term Atkins uses when referring to the most restrictive phase of the diet he created. Many people who haven't read the New Diet Revolution assume that this phase (up 20 g of carbs a day, a specific, limited list of carbs that are allowable and intended ONLY to be followed for 2 weeks) is the 'entire' eating plan. It is intended to be used as a kick-start, to help break a 'carb addiction' and also uses up stored glycogen quickly - which can lead to a big (water) weight loss. That big loss is sometimes the encouragement people need to keep on with the diet plan. After you've eaten at Induction levels for 2 weeks, the Plan calls for you to add small increments of carbs to your daily intake until you find your critical level for loss.
Different plans may have an initial very low carb phase which can be similar to Induction.
Aramanth
Saffire - 02 Mar 2004 03:20 GMT > Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking > about low carbs? Induction is the initial two-week phase of the Atkins diet. During that time, you are limited to certain foods (which is still a LOT) while your body depletes it's store of emergency glycogen in the liver and gets used to switching to using fat as fuel as opposed to carbohydrates and YOU start to break old eating habits. It's a kickstart to the Atkins Way Of Eating (WOE)
 Signature Saffire 205/169/125 - 5'2.5" Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333
Emil Mroz - 02 Mar 2004 05:21 GMT >Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking >about low carbs? Induction is a term used by Scientologists and Heaven's Gate cultists to describe the process of being converted to the "proper" way of life.
-- Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Smile! Have a nice day.
Nikole - 04 Mar 2004 04:00 GMT > >Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking > >about low carbs? > > Induction is a term used by Scientologists and Heaven's Gate cultists > to describe the process of being converted to the "proper" way of > life. Not to be intrusive or to say your opinion isn't welcome but if you think so little of the low carb way of life then why are you posting on a low carb support website? I understand some people don't believe in the diet and that is fine but I don't think it is very nice to criticize those of us who do follow and believe in it.
revek - 04 Mar 2004 05:29 GMT Nikole burbled across the ether:
>>> Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when >>> talking about low carbs? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in the diet and that is fine but I don't think it is very nice to > criticize those of us who do follow and believe in it. I read it like he was being cutesy in a mildly sarcastic way (there are some people who treat the book/website as gospel and that is sort of cultish), while at the same time kind of explaining what induction is partly about. It is not about weight loss. It *is* about:
breaking carb addiction learning to listen to your body (find out what real hunger is, find out what saited means) breaking the 'lowfat' habit/fear breaking the 'starve myself to lose weight' habit/fear cleaning out/detoxing your system as much as possible stabilizing your blood sugar and insulin response prepping your system for a food intolerance test
The weight loss is a nice side benefit, but not the purpose of Atkins induction.
 Signature revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please This memory brought to you by a brain cell that might have cured cancer instead.--Steve Coltrin
Emil Mroz - 06 Mar 2004 03:21 GMT >> >Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking >> >about low carbs? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >in the diet and that is fine but I don't think it is very nice to >criticize those of us who do follow and believe in it. First of all, this isn't a website, it is usenet. But that's not really important.
The question was, "what does induction mean when talking about low carbs." My answer is, NOTHING. Induction has no meaning that I know of in connection with a low carb diet.
I know of mathematical induction, logical induction, electrical induction, and induction into the military, but I don't know of any low carb induction.
However, I understand that a certain diet plan (or way of eating, if you prefer) uses a stage that is referred to as Induction. But, and this is a big but:
LOW CARB DOES NOT EQUAL ATKINS!
Sorry for shouting, but I sometimes think that The Scarlet Letter makes some people go deaf.
Anyway, my point, and I do have one, is that it is entirely possible to eat a low or lower carb diet without buying into one certain company's money-making machine.
One need not buy all the books, or snack bars, or squid shakes, or tube socks, or whatever else they want you to buy. Just because it is branded with the Big A doesn't mean that it is good, right, or necessary.
BTW, if you thought what I wrote in the last message was criticism, you obviously haven't been around Usenet very long. I'm a rank amateur compare to some of the folks around here.
Jean M. - 06 Mar 2004 03:53 GMT >>> >Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking >>> >about low carbs? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >you obviously haven't been around Usenet very long. I'm a rank amateur >compare to some of the folks around here. And none of what you wrote answered the question. "Induction" does have a meaning re: Atkins. Feeling a bit defensive is understandable.
Emil Mroz - 06 Mar 2004 04:28 GMT >And none of what you wrote answered the question. "Induction" does >have a meaning re: Atkins. Feeling a bit defensive is understandable. But that wasn't the question, was it.
The question (in this portion of the thread) was:
>Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking >about low carbs? > >Brian No mention of Atkins there, is there?
Defensive? I don't think so. I have absolutely nothing to feel defensive about. I live my life on *my* terms. Can you say the same?
-- Emil
DJ Delorie - 06 Mar 2004 05:04 GMT > >Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking > >about low carbs? > > No mention of Atkins there, is there? Atkins wasn't the question. Atkins was the *answer*.
Emil Mroz - 06 Mar 2004 08:03 GMT >> >Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking >> >about low carbs? >> >> No mention of Atkins there, is there? > >Atkins wasn't the question. Atkins was the *answer*. Clever. :)
I've been meaning to ask you. Are you the same DJ Delorie of DJGPP fame? If so, I just wanted to say good work.
-- Emil
DJ Delorie - 06 Mar 2004 15:09 GMT > I've been meaning to ask you. Are you the same DJ Delorie of DJGPP > fame? If so, I just wanted to say good work. I am, thanks. http://www.delorie.com/
Jean M. - 06 Mar 2004 15:58 GMT >>And none of what you wrote answered the question. "Induction" does >>have a meaning re: Atkins. Feeling a bit defensive is understandable. > >But that wasn't the question, was it. You did not answer the question. It's simple, really.
>The question (in this portion of the thread) was: > >>Please forgive my ignorance, but what does "induction" mean when talking >>about low carbs? Induction is the first 2 weeks of Atkins. See how easy that was?
>No mention of Atkins there, is there? Only because you didn't know the answer.
>Defensive? I don't think so. I have absolutely nothing to feel >defensive about. I live my life on *my* terms. Can you say the same? Did Atkins scare you as a child? ;-)
Get back to me when you lose the weight and we'll see how well your terms work. I do wish you well with it, but you need to lose the defensiveness. Time will tell if your way works, and I hope it does.
Emil Mroz - 06 Mar 2004 17:13 GMT >Get back to me when you lose the weight and we'll see how well your >terms work. I do wish you well with it, but you need to lose the >defensiveness. Time will tell if your way works, and I hope it does. MY way. What exactly is my way? I don't think I've mentioned one single thing about my way of losing weight.
Do you mean to tell me that you believe that anything that is *not* Atkins is wrong or doesn't work? If so, you are very much mistaken.
BTW, I've lost and continue to lose weight, and I am perfectly content with my rate of weight loss. Can you say the same?
-- Emil
Jean M. - 06 Mar 2004 17:58 GMT >>Get back to me when you lose the weight and we'll see how well your >>terms work. I do wish you well with it, but you need to lose the >>defensiveness. Time will tell if your way works, and I hope it does. > >MY way. What exactly is my way? I don't think I've mentioned one >single thing about my way of losing weight. Good grief. You just like to argue. You first said:
>>Defensive? I don't think so. I have absolutely nothing to feel >defensive about. I live my life on *my* terms. Can you say the same? Your terms, your way. Potato, potahto.
>Do you mean to tell me that you believe that anything that is *not* >Atkins is wrong or doesn't work? If so, you are very much mistaken. Backatcha, bubba. Where did I say that? Again with the defensiveness about your way. Nobody is attacking your way. Nobody knows your way. The objection as I saw it was that you gave a smartass dumb answer to a question and then went on to rant that Atkins isn't the be-all and end-all.
>BTW, I've lost and continue to lose weight, and I am perfectly content >with my rate of weight loss. Can you say the same? Yes, I can. Thanks for asking. You still didn't answer the question about induction. LOL!
Emil Mroz - 06 Mar 2004 18:46 GMT >Yes, I can. Thanks for asking. Fantastic, and you're welcome!
>You still didn't answer the question >about induction. LOL! I'm sorry, I must have missed that. What was your question about induction?
I really don't know all that much about the specifics of the Atkins way, but I'm sure that I could find the answer for you easy enough.
-- Emil
|
|
|