> I admit to being clueless about dietary matters but have been
> reading a little about Atkins. Can someone please enlighten me on
> the follow points which I cannot understand.
check out alt.support.diet.low-carb also.
> From what I can make of it Atkins says that carbo is for the bodies
> short-term energy store and if not used immediately, is converted to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 3) carbo into other things which may even be another category (just
> like Carbo -> Fat).
it's true to some extent, but the ability to convert them is
limited. When you are really deprived of carbohydrates, you use up
your fat.
> Can then protein be converted to fat? (and all the other
> combinations)? I sort of appreciate that the process is very complex
> and many "low-level" convertions happen - but I'm asking about the
> "higher level" ones.
Yes, but to a limited extent.
> **So do I take it that if we eat fat, it is NOT stored in the body
> as fat? If this is true then low-fat diets must be rather pointless
> mustn't they? **
Any diet that creates a calorie deficit will work. Some are just
easier than others.
> On a second point, from purely a carbo-to-fat convertion point of
> view, Atkins may make sense but what about, for example, the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thank you for any enlightenment.
>
Weight loss and good exercise are the most reliable means of reducing
cholesterol. This is true more or less regardless of what you eat.
Relation of dietary cholesterol to blood cholesterol levels is very
tenuous, actually. Most serum cholesterol is produced by the liver and
not taken in from food.
So. If you lose weight, and do aerobic exercise such as walking,
running, or bicycling, to the extent of one hour per day, your
cholesterol will drop regardless of your diet. The diet will have
some, but relatively small, impact on your cholesterol level.
Now if you are sedentary and obese, then diet may have a limited
effect on cholesterol, but it is small.
Similarly, intake of sugar has also been associated with higher
cholesterol levels.
Do not obsess with what you eat, as far as cholesterol goes. Stop
eating junk and exercise and lose weight and cholesterol will take
care of itself.
i
223/177/180
That T Woman - 13 Nov 2003 15:41 GMT
You might want to read the alt.support.diet.low-carb faq website before you
just jump in there. From what I've seen of that newsgroup, it would make it
less likely that you'll get flamed if you go in knowing a bit about the
subject.
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm
Tonia
> > I admit to being clueless about dietary matters but have been
> > reading a little about Atkins. Can someone please enlighten me on
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
> i
> 223/177/180
Ignoramus12517 - 13 Nov 2003 15:46 GMT
> You might want to read the alt.support.diet.low-carb faq website before you
> just jump in there. From what I've seen of that newsgroup, it would make it
> less likely that you'll get flamed if you go in knowing a bit about the
> subject.
>
> http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm
I have read a few low carb books. Would you like to point out
particular errors of my previous post?
i
> Tonia
>
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>> i
>> 223/177/180
That T Woman - 13 Nov 2003 17:29 GMT
> > You might want to read the alt.support.diet.low-carb faq website before you
> > just jump in there. From what I've seen of that newsgroup, it would make it
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I have read a few low carb books. Would you like to point out
> particular errors of my previous post?
I wasn't criticizing your post. I was just suggesting that before the OP
goes on asd.l-c that he/she reads their faqs so they don't inadvertently ask
one of the questions that *upset* the regulars on that newsgroup. I may be
mistaken but I picked up the impression that some of the regulars on there
"do not suffer fools lightly." Anyone who is thinking about going on
misc.fitness.weights should definitely find and read their facts because
*those* folks can be brutal (not even a strong enough word for it though).
Tonia
--
"You got up everyday, hoping for the best, but life threw crap at you, and
you were shot in the gut and died, then you got up and went on, and life
threw more crap at you, and you were run down in traffic and died again, and
when you just tried, for God's sake, to *get on with it*, life threw still
more crap at you, so it shouldn't be a surprise that eventually all this
strenuous activity gave you the appetite of an Olympic power lifter."
-- "The Face", p. 308 by Dean Koontz
Ignoramus12517 - 13 Nov 2003 17:36 GMT
>> > You might want to read the alt.support.diet.low-carb faq website before
> you
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> misc.fitness.weights should definitely find and read their facts because
> *those* folks can be brutal (not even a strong enough word for it though).
Oh, I see. I misunderstood your comment.
i
223/177/180
Forget Atkins or other low-carb. Clinical studies independent
of the Atkins foundation (JAMA) show that it is nothing more
than a reduced calorie program that, like all other specialty
diets, people get bored with and get off of. The thing that
really bothers me about it is that in one study 68% of the
participants developed constipation. Obviously if you want
to avoid colo-rectal cancer, one of the top three cancer
killers, you do not want this to happen to you.
Start an exercise program first and stick with it.
> I admit to being clueless about dietary matters but have been reading a little
> about Atkins. Can someone please enlighten me on the follow points which I
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Thank you for any enlightenment.
Ignoramus12517 - 13 Nov 2003 15:35 GMT
> Forget Atkins or other low-carb. Clinical studies independent
> of the Atkins foundation (JAMA) show that it is nothing more
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> to avoid colo-rectal cancer, one of the top three cancer
> killers, you do not want this to happen to you.
People get bored with all kids of diets and get off them.
If Atkins leads to reduced calories, then it is a good and not a bad
thing.
> Start an exercise program first and stick with it.
now that is hard to argue with.
i
who is not on atkins
223/177/180
>> I admit to being clueless about dietary matters but have been reading a little
>> about Atkins. Can someone please enlighten me on the follow points which I
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>>
>> Thank you for any enlightenment.
Jayjay - 13 Nov 2003 16:21 GMT
>Forget Atkins or other low-carb. Clinical studies independent
>of the Atkins foundation (JAMA) show that it is nothing more
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>to avoid colo-rectal cancer, one of the top three cancer
>killers, you do not want this to happen to you.
Will you get off your wholier than thou high horse!
EVERY DIET WORKS BY CALORIE RESTRICTION!!!!
Calories in vs. calories out.
Wendy - 13 Nov 2003 18:15 GMT
> Forget Atkins or other low-carb. Clinical studies independent
> of the Atkins foundation (JAMA) show that it is nothing more
> than a reduced calorie program that, like all other specialty
> diets, people get bored with and get off of.
But other studies show it is easier to stick with a low-carb diet that
handles satietion issues better than a low-fat diet. In the end you have
to choose foods that meet your physical needs and many of us find that we
are happy on less calories if we stick with a ratio like 40/30/30
(carbs/proteins/fat) (more or less.)
> The thing that
> really bothers me about it is that in one study 68% of the
> participants developed constipation. Obviously if you want
> to avoid colo-rectal cancer, one of the top three cancer
> killers, you do not want this to happen to you.
I absolutely agree with that. My reading of the New Atkins suggests that
you're supposed to eat a fair amount of high fiber carbs. It's only the
vaguely remembered and yearned for version of Atkins that causes the
constipation, the one where you subsist on bacon grease, pork rinds and
full-fat cottage cheese.
If you do Atkins "right", i.e., healthy, it looks an awful lot like South
Beach or Zone or Glycemic Index or Dieabetic Exchange diets.
Wendy
High level break down: (non technical)
Carbs convert to energy that the body uses now.
Protein is the "building block" in that it builds muscle
Fat is for long term storage.
Excess carbs and excess protein can convert to fat.
Basically - eat in excess = fat storage.
Your body requires a certain amount of calories just to keep you going
each day.
If your calorie intake is greater than your body needs - you gain
weight
If your calorie intake is less than your body needs, you lose weight
If your calorie intak is equal to what your body needs, you maintain
your weight.
The thing about carbs.
There's sugar and processed carbs. These are converted to quick
energy sources. Your body uses them very quickly, giving you a burst
of energy. (ever hear the term "sugar high"?). Then you crash.
The thing about those types of carbs is - they cause your blood sugar
levels to spike, then fall. When they fall, your body then wants
another energy spike - so it causes you to "crave" more of those kinds
of foods. This causes you to take in excess calories.
Carby foods like whole grains, legumes, etc tend to have less of an
effect on the blood sugar and do not cause those sugar high spikes.
Thus you stay fuller longer and don't have the cravings later.
Also - proteins don't have this affect on blood sugar either. So, if
you eat proteins and low carb foods (salads and meat) then you
maintain a more steady level blood sugar. You don't have the spikes
and crashes. You don't have the sugar cravings.
This helps you maintain control of your appetite. Thus allowing you
to eat less than your body needs and losing weight.
Couple all that with EXERCISE and you cause your body to need more
calories - meaning you can create more of a deficit between calories
in vs. calories out. Lose more weight.
And exercise has the added benefit w/ helping sleep and helping you to
feel better all over.
>I admit to being clueless about dietary matters but have been reading a little
>about Atkins. Can someone please enlighten me on the follow points which I
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>Thank you for any enlightenment.
dave - 13 Nov 2003 16:55 GMT
Many thanks for the follow ups esp Jayjay and Ignoramous both whom realised I
wasn't asking about Atkins - merely using it as a starting point for my
questionS about substance convertions and the source of cholesterol in the body
from chol. in food. I have read several faq's but needed several points bringing
together. I have learnt something from their comments. Thanks.
>High level break down: (non technical)
[snip...]
The best place I ever saw for learning about the energy cycle in your body
at a cellular level is:
http://www.hussman.org/fitness/index.htm#energy
As for cholesterol, some people are more prone to accumulating dietary
cholesterol than others. My understanding of Atkins is that it isn't
particularly bad for your cholesterol. Just losing fat helps to improve
your cholesterol profile, in fact, so anything you do with regard to
eating less will help.
I prefer the Zone diet books to the Atkins books. It comes down to making
good food choices, though. Choose healthy carbs (high fiber, high
nutrient ones) and eschew ones with too many calories for their nutrient
value. Choose health fats (seed oils and fatty fish) and avoid saturated
fats from animal sources.
Good luck,
Wendy