Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 01:05
KristyRusi's Avatar
KristyRusi KristyRusi is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 292
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 251.9/179.8/160 Female 5'6 inches
BF:43%/40%/31%/28.8%
Progress: 78%
Location: Troy, Alabama
Unhappy Depressing information that makes sense.

So, i know there are people who can't handle what i'm about to say but i'm in the war-zone for a reason.

Basically, i've come here because i've been questioning information and whether this L/C thing is going to work and it has me really thinking about my choices and because i frankly feel a bit depressed in general (maybe my TOM or hormones or whatever). But instead of raging them on my husband or just being a mope i decided to research them out. It kinda made it worse, but at least i can decide if i'm at peace with the results


I decided to do a lot of research because i noticed, on this forum and another L/C forum i regular, that many people experience minimal weight loss during induction (for atkins) or after induction they stall, or they end up having to count calories or reduce their fat intake or even HAVE to exercise to keep a steady weight loss/week or they even gain weight or fail. For these reasons, i kept asking myself, if they are counting calories, exercising and reducing fat, what on earth makes this way of life any different than any other diet?

My results lead me to some interesting articles of which had many different results. Mostly though the ones that caught my eye talked about how, L/C really ISN'T different than any other diet in many ways.

The factors behind why we lose weight on L/C are basically the same concept as any other diet.

1. you restrict your intake of certain foods.

By restricting your intake of certain foods, whether it be calories (just eating less foods) or removing carbs or eating low fat, you are still simply doing just that -reducing. Any reduction in food types or amounts will result in water weight loss. In 80% of food consuption based diets (that is not pills or surgery or fasting) you will always lose water weight.

Looking back on all the diets i've tried, it's true i lost weight (actually on some more weight than i've lost so far L/Cing) in the first week usually around 8-10lbs.

2. weight loss stall at or around 2 weeks or a month.

As with most diets (jenny criag, weight watchers, atkins etc..) you stall because your body realizes what you are doing and starts to adjust accordingly to the process at which it now has to function.

I am on day 12 of induction on day 7 of induction i'd lost 7lbs and though i told myself i would not weigh until after my TOM was over i snuck in and weighed myself anyway. I have gained 3lbs back, so in 12 days i've lost 4lbs. (not good in my history of dieting by any means) even if i factor in a 5lb addition for TOM retention that's only 8lbs in 12 days. (1lb in the last 5 days). My body has always been one massive stall. Before L/C i usually ate 1 meal a day 6 days outta the week and 3 on a weekend day. I maintained my heavy weight (give or take 5lbs) for the last 3-4 years unless i dieted.

Stalls can be cured on most diet plans however. You change up the routine, people suggest cutting this adding that, exercise (yeah right lol).

3. Weight gain or weight loss goal reached.

This is direct from one article i read:

"A low-carb diet does not necessarily mean a low-calorie diet. While many low-carb dieters experience quick weight loss at the beginning of their diet, the initial water loss that accompanies a low-carb, high protein diet may be causing the numbers on your scale to go down. After your initial period of weight loss, or water loss, consuming more calories than your body requires, regardless of the type of food, causes your body to store the excess calories as fat. Extra calories contribute to weight gain. In order to lose weight and keep it off while on a low-carb diet, it is important to choose low-calories foods that help you stick to your daily caloric range and avoid foods high in calories and fat."

For me this makes sense. You cant expect to eat anything your heart desires even if it's on an "approved" list. Every body is different and most bodies (especially one stuborn like mine) will find a way to go back to it's "comfortable" place storing fat, no matter what form it comes in, be it Fat, Protein, Carbs etc.

One of the main assumptions of why L/C people reach their weight goals (most of which were due to "over eating" weight gain in the first place) is because of this (from another article):

"Long term, low-carb dieters may also find the reason they're losing weight is the lack of variety in foods allowed. There's less interest in those foods, therefore there's less intake and fewer calories consumed. When dieters go off the low-carb diet, the weight comes back- end of story."

This is EXACTLY what i am experiencing now. I am so bored with the same 8 things i can eat (and afford) that i not only am not hungry (because protein does take longer to break down) but also because i'm totally dis-interested in my options. This completely works for people who eat, just to eat. But i never had this issue before L/C i wasn't hungry then either.

Simply lowering what i put in my mouth does not result in weight loss for me. The only time in my life i ever lost weight and maintained the weight loss was when i worked a physical labor job (in 110 degree Alabama weather) and kept the job for 2 years, i lost 20lbs in a month, and an additional 30 over the first year. I weighed around 200lbs (give or take 5lbs) the entire time i worked that job, and i still only ate maybe 1x a day (but i did drink alcohol a lot back then on the weekends i was in my early 20's). My point being that if L/C only works for the weak-willed maybe i've chosen the wrong path?

There were ZERO articles pro or con about L/C diets that didn't mention that eventually yes you will have to cut calories (that part for me is irrelevant). But there was an article that said that over consuption of Protein may result in weight GAIN as stated here:

"People on low-carb diets may gain weight if they eat too many fatty foods without exercising enough to burn off the extra calories. If you replace your carbs with fat, you're getting 5 more calories per gram than you were before. Without regular exercise, those fatty foods can add up to extra pounds. Constipation can also be a result of a low-carb diet, and weight gain. It is important to remember fat and protein can both be converted into glucose if necessary through a process called gluconeogenesis and thus spike blood sugar levels and cause you to store this glucose if needed for bodily function."

I find myself pretty much 'force-feeding' the fat and some of the protein. I make a large salad and pick around the chicken and bacon, and am stuck with a plate of meat, of which i will choke down 1/2 of and toss the rest. The only place i don't slack on is butter/marg consuption, although i don't really eat many foods that require it anymore therefore i eat much less butter than i did before L/Cing.

I have 2 more days left on induction. I feel tired all the time, the atkins flu (though i'm pretty much over the worst of it now) kicked my but, i feel depressed, i have a sweet tooth that i never ever had before L/C (i think mostly from the desire to taste something outside the list for variety's sake). I want to feel excited, energized and proud of what i've done thus far, but i don't. I feel lackluster in my results and in the prospect of a future on L/C. I've even read that a LOT of people never make it past adding so much as 30-40 carbs/day to their diet to maintain. This leave very little room for variety i'm sure. It truly isn't the food i miss, so much as my mood i miss.

This isn't so much a list of factual statements meant to offend or even pursuade anyone, they are simply my findings, and my mood at this time and the way i'm feeling sometimes it just helps to get things on paper. I also read that having a once a month cheat meal is actually beneficial because it gives you something to look forward to, keeps you on the straight and narrow and lightens your mental stress for "dieting." In addition can actually keep your body having to produce extra energy to deal with the appearance of something new to break down, helping you from stall. I know for some cheating just means a snowball effect, and right now i don't need to cheat or even "care" about cheating.. but that in itself is the problem.. i just don't care. ... *sigh*

Last edited by KristyRusi : Thu, Jan-10-13 at 01:11.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 01:18
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

II lost weight by low carbing and eating approx 4000 calories a day. I assumed at the time it was that my body simplydidnt absorb extra fat in my diet and therefore it didnt count - I also believe that insulin is the key factor. Its insulin that turns sugar/surplius energy into body fat - so if you dont eat foods that raise insulin - carbs, then its less likely that your body will turn it into energy reserves! After all, our bodies were designed to store energy for the future when food may not be so abundant.

I personally dont believe that calories are a good measurement of food at all. I tried a low calorie diet once (well 100s of times lol) but this particular time what I did was to have three mars bars a day and nothing else for a week - I lost nothing at all, and was climbing the walls with hunger. Yet on a low carb diet, I eat good wholesome food, I'm rarely hungry and I lost around 90lbs. I gained weight again after a few years, simply because I added some bad carbs o my diet - I cut out nuts to compensate, but I still wacked on 20lbs. So in September I went back on atkins induction and have now lost the surplus. I dont eat as much this time round, partly because I wanted to be sure I'd lose and partly because I dont need/want to.

Oh, and by the way, I dont exercise, I have a fairly active life, altho I'm lazy and cant be bothered with gym, running, training...... I have got a slendertone belt thing tho lol!!

Jo xxx
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 01:53
KristyRusi's Avatar
KristyRusi KristyRusi is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 292
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 251.9/179.8/160 Female 5'6 inches
BF:43%/40%/31%/28.8%
Progress: 78%
Location: Troy, Alabama
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojoj
II lost weight by low carbing and eating approx 4000 calories a day. I assumed at the time it was that my body simplydidnt absorb extra fat in my diet and therefore it didnt count - I also believe that insulin is the key factor. Its insulin that turns sugar/surplius energy into body fat - so if you dont eat foods that raise insulin - carbs, then its less likely that your body will turn it into energy reserves! After all, our bodies were designed to store energy for the future when food may not be so abundant.

I personally dont believe that calories are a good measurement of food at all. I tried a low calorie diet once (well 100s of times lol) but this particular time what I did was to have three mars bars a day and nothing else for a week - I lost nothing at all, and was climbing the walls with hunger. Yet on a low carb diet, I eat good wholesome food, I'm rarely hungry and I lost around 90lbs. I gained weight again after a few years, simply because I added some bad carbs o my diet - I cut out nuts to compensate, but I still wacked on 20lbs. So in September I went back on atkins induction and have now lost the surplus. I dont eat as much this time round, partly because I wanted to be sure I'd lose and partly because I dont need/want to.

Oh, and by the way, I dont exercise, I have a fairly active life, altho I'm lazy and cant be bothered with gym, running, training...... I have got a slendertone belt thing tho lol!!

Jo xxx


LoL... could it have been that the reason the low calorie didn't work was because you had 3 mars bars and nothing else?... i mean technically you could have had massive amounts of salad grilled chicken etc.. and not been hungry. I mean we don't get mars bars on Atkins either lol. I couldn't go in there and eat 20carbs worth of just cheese and nothing else and expect to lose weight. Maybe that was apoor example for you to give but at least it made me laugh so that's a plus Thanks for the response.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 02:14
Lulumae's Avatar
Lulumae Lulumae is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,092
 
Plan: Atkins, sort of
Stats: 184/166/152 Female 5'6
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Hi there!
There is a lot of "information" out there, some good some bad. Have you read the book by Gary Taubes (Why we get Fat) or Dr William Davis's Wheat Belly? Of course you have to be critical, not just swallow them whole, but I find both very convincing and LC is working for me, without exercise to speak of (I walk 20 minutes to the station every weekday). And it's done wonders for my digestion.
I am sure it's possible to find a low carb way of eating that's not boring or expensive. There are so many options for making nice creamy sauces (thickened with lemon juice) for example. And melted butter makes veggies a real treat for me.
I am somewhat less interested in food since I started low carbing, but that is surely a good thing! Food is fuel, after all. Nature made it pleasurable because we have to eat, and it's a pity not to enjoy it, but for me it was a bit of an obsession which is probably one reason I got fat!
Anyway, whether you embrace low carb or not, I hope you have a great year!
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 15:16
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KristyRusi
LoL... could it have been that the reason the low calorie didn't work was because you had 3 mars bars and nothing else?... i mean technically you could have had massive amounts of salad grilled chicken etc.. and not been hungry. I mean we don't get mars bars on Atkins either lol. I couldn't go in there and eat 20carbs worth of just cheese and nothing else and expect to lose weight. Maybe that was apoor example for you to give but at least it made me laugh so that's a plus Thanks for the response.
It was before my atkins days. But think about it. If memory serves there are around 300 calories in a mars bar x 3 so I was eating 900 calories a day - how come i didnt lose any weight??? I tried it cos someone told me that it was a way of dealing with our need for sugar duh???? Plenty of salads and grilled chicken yep - the trouble with that was I had to have bread, coleslaw and/or pasta with it and then I had to have something sweet afterwards........... trust me, I went on every diet known to man and none of them dealt with my need to constantly eat junk, apart from atkins. As for eating 20 carbs of cheese, well no, that wouldnt be easy, which tells me that carb restriction is more doable than calorie restriction and it doesnt start up your insulin, so therefore they'd be nothing to turn the surplus onto body fat. Actually, 20 carbs of cheese, eaten thoughout the day probably is doable and yes you'd lose weight!

I guess I'm never going to be able to dis atkins/low carb. I lost 90lbs on it, got rid of IBS, ezcema. arthritus and prediabetes, it totally changed my life


Jo xxx

Last edited by ojoj : Thu, Jan-10-13 at 15:23.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 15:41
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,140
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Kristi, Jo is right that regulation of blood sugar and insulin are the key to LC working as a means to lose weight. When your blood sugar goes high, your pancreas pumps out insulin to bring it down to a level where it does does not damage your tissues. How does insulin do this? By converting the carbs to fat.

As far as having no appetite for protein, that is fairly normal. Hardly anyone overeats it routinely. Your body will use what it needs to repair lean mass and may convert some to glucose when you are low carbing (and before you are producing reliable ketones to fuel your brain). Are you following a set program? Though the New Atkins advises you count net carbs rather than total, the rest of the program is sound re: how much protein to eat per day for your height, how many carbs to eat, how much fat, how much to worry (or not) about calories. If you've not read it, I recommend you do because the structure is so clear.

As far as never progressing beyond 30 or 40 carbs per day forever: 1) it's too early for you to worry about that. One day at a time; once you get past induction try moving up the carb ladder and see if you can continue to lose while eating more carbs and a wider variety of foods. Many do. 2) if you're young, you may well be able to exceed that. 3) once you are properly acclimated to low carb, and it can take 4-6 weeks to be fully adjusted, you may find that is plenty to keep you satisfied. And it's much better to be cognizant of it than not.

As far as fat having twice the calories as carbs per gram, I dare you to try eating 300 grams of fat per day (most folks on conventional SADiets eat in the range of 300 grams of carbs per day). I'll bet you quit eating long before you reach that point because fat makes you full and satisfied. Carbs only make you pump out more insulin, which makes you hungrier, so you keep eating.

I've been eating low carb since the end of December 2003. I began with South Beach, eating 50-75 grams of carbs per day (an estimate since you are encouraged NOT to count). I lost a good amount of weight, then stalled/maintained for almost 7 years before turning to Atkins. I lost more weight, eating ~30 grams carbs per day, but have had difficulty maintaining that loss. It makes me think I got too low for my particular body, but I soldier on because I think I look better at the lower weight.

What I'm trying to say is there are many different low carb programs. Atkins is good for me now, but South Beach was just as good, maybe better, 9 years ago. If you are only 2 days from the end of induction, you will be free to add berries and/or nuts soon. It sounds like you're ready.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 15:46
livinright livinright is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,023
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 264/158/125 Female 64inches
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Florence, KY
Default

Wow. I'm surprised you can only find 8 items out of about 100 allowed food items that you can afford.

Losing 4 pounds on inductions means that you have a high degree of metabolic resistance. (you probably already guessed that)

No matter the "diet", if you stop following it, you regain the weight.

I eat a very good variety of foods on 30-40 net carbs a days.

LC works for me because it takes away the blood sugar swings that would make me "hungry" an hour after my 4th trip to the buffet. I am rarely hungry in-between meals when I stick to low carb REAL food.

If you haven't already, check out one of the Atkins books that was written by Dr. A himself. Lots of stuff in there to help find what foods work best for each individual body.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 16:25
StuartB StuartB is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 146
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 212/197/175 Male 5'11"
BF:
Progress: 41%
Location: Canada
Default

Hi, Krysti. I'm a newbie at LCing, but I've done lots of dieting in the past. I actually started Atkins for my health, the weight loss being secondary. The induction was quite trying and I felt headachy all the time. But, once I got past that I've had mostly great days. The terrible pressure and bloating that I always had has gone. Also, a pain that was with me for two years has all but vanished. The Dr's were going to remove my gall bladder, even though they didn't find evidence of stones, but now I wouldn't have that surgery if you paid me. I believe my liver was in pain due to inflammation, which was due to all the carbs I consumed. Of course, I added to my own misery by drinking WAY too much, because I was unhappy with my life for awhile.

So, for me any weight loss is a bonus, but my health has taken such a turn for the better that I will never go back to carb eating, whether dieting, or not. As some stated, some people need more carbs than others, so it's all about balance. However, for most of us it took a good long time to put us in the predicament where we needed to lose weight and it is not realistic to expect results in short order.

Also, researching through the power of google can be ruinous to one's mind. I'm guilty of this big time, but I am now forcing myself NOT to look at sites that refute the LC WOE. At some point we have to use our instincts and trust that we are following a better way. Obviously the way we were doing things before wasn't working that great, or we would never have started low-carbing in the first place.

Wheat is poison, as are vegetable oils and sugar. I wish I lived in a world where I could eat cinnamon buns again, without consequence, but that world doesn't exist. I'm staking my claim on some kind of low-carb lifestyle, and am hoping that over the next year I figure out a good balance for myself.

You have already done amazingly well just starting. You should be really proud of the fact that you had the courage to begin Atkins and the fortitude to get through induction. Stay the course...we're all in the same boat!
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 16:47
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,842
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Check out the thread in my signature about salt and the other one about being "bored".
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 17:49
fire_dancr's Avatar
fire_dancr fire_dancr is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 781
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 266/222/166 Female 65 inches
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: Cincinnati
Default

My dad lost over 50 on atkins and ate lbs and lbs of chicken wings in a sitting. I lost over 90 and never restricted any calories I just ate a ton of good food. Then I got pregnant and got off the diet. Stupid Dr. I didnt' realize I gained so much until afterwards. I ate "healthy". Yet I am up 50 lbs and my baby was only 9 so........???
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 18:01
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

~ Kristy

Everything you said is true, mostly. Low-carb is not that different from other diets. In fact, on this forum we often point out how a low-fat calorie-restricted diet is just a low-carb diet in disguise, since a low-fat diet is a high-carb diet, and the bulk of calories we cut must invariably come from carbs. Or course, this is just the low-carb bias talking. But the point is that both low-carb and low-fat have something in common: They both restrict the same thing, but low-carb restricts it more. We could argue this shouldn't make a difference, but it does. This list of low-carb studies show low-carb is better in all things measured, including weight loss:

http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

Maybe we're all different. But in what way and to what extent? Are we different physiologically? I don't think so. If that was true, it would be the most obvious thing. Let's take lactose intolerance for example. It's an obvious difference. But it's not a big difference. The only thing different here is that during puberty, the genes that are responsible for lactose digestion get turned off. The genes are still there, they just don't do anything. So we're not different fundamentally with this lactose intolerance, but only superficially. And anyway, it's not like cow's milk is essential to our health, or even beneficial. To put it another way, somebody who can digest lactose doesn't need to anyway.

If there are things that make us different, it would be things like acquired taste, or epigenetics. Epigenetics is a very significant factor in how we deal with food. Pottenger did some experiments with cats on that. At the time, nobody understood that it was about epigenetics, but today we know more. Pottenger showed that diet-induced deficiencies can be inherited. So, feed the mother cat a deficient diet, and her progeny will also exhibit the symptoms of the mother's deficient diet. Keep feeding the same deficient diet to her progeny, and each generation grows worse, and it takes 4 generations for the species to stop being able to reproduce. Start feeding them a proper diet, and it takes 3 generations for the species to return to normal. If that's how it works with cats, there's no reason it should work differently for humans or for any other species. A deficient diet is a deficient diet, no matter which species. Epigenetics also acts throughout one's life, not just from one generation to the next. So you could eat one diet for 20 years, and it would take more than just a couple weeks to change the effects of that previous diet if you changed your diet today, because of epigenetics.

Another way we could be different is through environmental agents like infections for example. If one has an infection, and the other doesn't, but we don't know about the infection, then we could conclude that the two are different fundamentally. But we'd be wrong, of course. Fix the infection, and suddenly both are affected the same way by the same diet. The fundamental difference we saw earlier disappears. It wasn't fundamental, it was just environmental. How many people know they have an infection? Usually, it's obvious. But when it's not, we could be wasting lots of time in futile attempts that make no difference, because the unknown yet real infection hinders our efforts.

And then there's the great assumption. How many things do you think you know, when in fact you don't really know? Take fire for example. Do you really know that if you put your hand in the fire, you'll get burned? Have you ever tried it? If you've never tried, then you don't really know. You only assume that you'll get burned. With good reason of course. But the point is that it's still just an assumption, because you've never tried it yourself, or have never seen anybody else try it either. You have no direct evidence for it. Of course, the assumption is correct. Fire burns, therefore if you put your hand in it, you'll get burned. No need to try it. The point here is that this mind trick, we do it with everything. Food, calories, exercise, everything.

Take calories for example. We assume that if we eat too much, we'll grow fat. We don't really know, but we do know about the First Law of Thermodynamics, and we assume that there's a cause-and-effect thing going on here, and the obvious cause is eating too much, and the obvious effect is growing fatter. However, the opposite is just as valid, and it agrees with the First Law. If we grow fatter, First Law says energy can't be created, so the extra fat must come from somewhere, therefore we must eat more to compensate. The cause is growing fatter, the effect is overeating. But that's just one way to expose our assumptions, to expose our lack of actual facts.

Physiology is metabolism. It's not thermodynamics. However, metabolism must obey thermodynamics too, but in ways that make it look like things are not what they seem. Take exercise for example. We assume that if we exercise more, but eat the same, we'll lose weight. And we could be right. But experiments don't always agree. If we exercise more, we spend more energy, but what's to say we won't just eat more to compensate? We will get hungry. But let's say we don't eat more anyway. What's to say our metabolism won't just slow down more between bouts of exercise to compensate? We have virtually no control over that, except if we take drugs that have an effect on that. But then, doing that only proves that we have no control over metabolism, and it will slow down more to compensate. We could just do even more exercise, and just eat even less. But where does it stop?

No, it's much better to understand physiology and metabolism, so we can deal with it accordingly. Understanding physiology and metabolism allows us to understand that we're not so different, and when it looks like we are different, we know there's a reason for the difference, like with lactose intolerance for example. We do this by questioning our assumptions, and digging through the facts.

But we're talking about Atkins, right? You read the "Atkins didn't work for me" thread, I believe? Anyway, there's any number of reasons why it doesn't work for somebody. But if you look at all those reason, there's something that pops out. Most of those reasons have nothing to do with the diet itself. In fact, the number 1 reason for why it didn't work is that we didn't actually eat that way. We can't blame the diet if we didn't actually eat the diet, can we?

But this brings up a very interesting point. A diet (book) is just a set of instructions. And as instructions go, if they're badly written, or outright incomprehensible, we'll have a hard time following them, if at all. In fact, that's what drove me to write that booklet I was talking about in that thread. I wanted to write a set of instructions that was so simple so easy that anybody could do it. Anyway, the point is that we can blame the diet if it's badly written, and if we end up not following it because of that. But we can't blame the foods, only the instructions.

/wall of text

Last edited by M Levac : Thu, Jan-10-13 at 18:08.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 18:24
femur femur is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 192
 
Plan: CRON
Stats: 178/117/130 Female 5 feet 7 inches
BF:BMI 18.5 Yay!
Progress: 127%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojoj
It was before my atkins days. But think about it. If memory serves there are around 300 calories in a mars bar x 3 so I was eating 900 calories a day - how come i didnt lose any weight??? I tried it cos someone told me that it was a way of dealing with our need for sugar duh???? Plenty of salads and grilled chicken yep - the trouble with that was I had to have bread, coleslaw and/or pasta with it and then I had to have something sweet afterwards........... trust me, I went on every diet known to man and none of them dealt with my need to constantly eat junk, apart from atkins. As for eating 20 carbs of cheese, well no, that wouldnt be easy, which tells me that carb restriction is more doable than calorie restriction and it doesnt start up your insulin, so therefore they'd be nothing to turn the surplus onto body fat. Actually, 20 carbs of cheese, eaten thoughout the day probably is doable and yes you'd lose weight!

I guess I'm never going to be able to dis atkins/low carb. I lost 90lbs on it, got rid of IBS, ezcema. arthritus and prediabetes, it totally changed my life


Jo xxx


I'm guessing you either didn't stay on your "diet" long enough to see results or you were eating other stuff besides Mars bars. Your basal metabolic rate has to be higher than 900 so how you skirted the laws of physiology is anybody's guess. I can see how you wouldn't want to stay on a "diet" like that for very long, so maybe you just went on it and went off it within a matter of days, and therefore it "didn't work for you."

Your diet reminded me of the guy who lost 27# eating nothing but Twinkies. He ate calories below what he needed to maintain his current weight, and he consistently lost weight. Not only that, his blood markers improved probably due simply to the weight loss itself.

I'm not advocating eating Twinkies or Mars bars or other junk food. But to say that you cannot lose eating 900 calories a day consistently over time doesn't fit with basic physiology. If anything, simply looking at the MN Starvation experiment or people in undeveloped countries who don't get enough of any food on a daily basis would make me skeptical.

Then you say you lost on 4,000 a day doing Atkins. Yet you don't eat 4,000 these days because you "want to make sure you lose."

That sounds contradictory.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 19:10
KristyRusi's Avatar
KristyRusi KristyRusi is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 292
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 251.9/179.8/160 Female 5'6 inches
BF:43%/40%/31%/28.8%
Progress: 78%
Location: Troy, Alabama
Default

Thanks everyone for their imput. I understand (especially for those who have succeeded) that you can take the positives and outweight the negatives, and for right now, i'm trying to stay positive and i am sticking with it. The lack of interest in the food i can eat being a huge help to that i suppose. But as quoted in my original post that only gives a factual example to the reason people lose weight on L/C by not being interested in food, you eat less therefore lose weight.

Quote:
Wow. I'm surprised you can only find 8 items out of about 100 allowed food items that you can afford.~Livinright


I'm not sure where this list of 100 things for "induction" is, i've even included things like cheeses and almonds into my induction despite that being a "second rung/phase2" allowance just to help me not cheat on carb quantities.

I mostly was refering to meat options. I'm on a ham, bacon, chicken, porkchop rotation (i can HAVE hamburger meat that is affordable but i hate it unless it's hidden in foods like pasta or the like, and i can not afford delicious seafood/steak etc.) in addition i eat cheese as i said, almonds, greens and tomatoes (i have never liked onions peppers or mushrooms ever..) that adds up to.. 8 things. (sure the greens are different but eventually they all taste the same... a hot green or cold green). So yes i eat 8 affordable things.

Quote:
It was before my atkins days. But think about it. If memory serves there are around 300 calories in a mars bar x 3 so I was eating 900 calories a day - how come i didnt lose any weight???~Ojoj


i would assume that you didn't lose weight because a. your body probably needed more than 900 calories to survive (the average low calorie diet is more like 1200-1500 of healthy foods) and b. because you were starving yourself your body stored every single gram of bad things in that candy bar for later use. I'm very very happy L/C worked for you (i just love your hair by the way) and i HOPE with all my hopes it works for me. But i don't have to kid myself. When i tried low cal the only thing that kept me from succeeding was me. I did not have the will-power back then to not sneak that hunny bun or that cappuchino or that pile of buffet bacon. The same can happen on L/C. I can break down and dive into a buffet dessert bar head first if i let that self-control go. As i've gotten older, and as my body (and i) have become so lazy, i was only eating once a day because that's probably all i needed in calories/carbs whatever to live each day (as i wasn't gaining extra weight, i just wasn't losing either). L/C only worries me in this sense because i'm basically BACK to where i started. The first 3-4 days of Atkins i was ravenous! i wanted to literally eat the house down. (i'm assuming that was carb shock). After the l/c flu dissipated i am now only ever hungry 1x a day. Everything i've read even pro-l/c articles say that if you consume more calories than you need you will not lose weight because it will burn the fats you are eating before buring your reserves. In addition if you consume to few you will STORE it as FAT that isnt getting burned. Well if i only needed (for example) 1000 calories before to maintain my weight, and i now eat 1200 calories a day, won't i gain weight even if it's without carbs or vise versa if i need 1000 calories but am only eating 300 or 400 won't my body go into starvation mode and save it as fat? I think so.

Quote:
Carbs only make you pump out more insulin, which makes you hungrier, so you keep eating~Liz53


If this is true then why before i started l/c and was eating carbs did i not eat more than 1x a day? maybe the actual science is true, but for me this is not a true statement. I was and am still hardly EVER hungry, i usually just got a headache or because i had to cook dinner for my husband realized "oh i haven't eatten, i better do that."

Thanks Nancy LC for the link to the recipes (most of which though) seems like they are for me far in the future rungs but i will try to scan through it and see if i can find something.

Fire Dancer - the main reason i want to lose weight is because after 4 years of trying my husband and i went to the doctor and we were given the "first things first" quit smoking and lose weight lecture. We quit smoking in July (woot!) and we started our weightloss after xmas 2012, i hope so badly one day i'll be complainging about baby fat at least then i'll have a beautiful bundle of joy to blame for all these stretch marks i currently have no excuse for lol! Also, congrats and i wish you luck i hope to be a success story soon .

M Levac thanks for all the information (was kinda overwhelming and long winded (as in information was given that wasn't needed to get to the point, my advice on your "book" would be to get to the point quicker or people will consider it "bad instruction".) I do think you are right though. That our parents habits do play a small part it in. My parents ate TERRIBLE they ate all the junk food in the world our house was always filled with snack cakes, chips, sugary cereals etc, but they both were SKINNY as sticks.. like wise my grandparents on both sides ate the same horrible way, SKINNY as sticks as well. But i don't buy those things. I don't really have a taste for many sweets usually (atkins has made that sweet tooth worse than it ever was in my life.) but if their bad habits transfered to me, it was just the metabolizm of a walrus that i got switched at birth lol.

Femur - you are right, there are many many websites for paleo/body builder sites (i just found them in passing) that are actually called the "eat once a day" diet. In addition some of them don't eat but maybe 1-3x a week, they all do lose weight though, but build massive muscle because they do eat mostly meat. I don't know enough about it to give expert analysis like i said just found it in passing. The less you eat =weight loss (at least in the begining). As all diets (even bad for you ones) you will stall, and maintain, because your body learns what to do with this new process. I fear and science tells me if i eat more calories than my body needs to burn whether in carbs/fats or whatever, i will not lose weight and may even gain weight.

It's like after that guy did the "super-size me" movie and ate all that Mc'ds and got really unhealthy, another guy did the same exact thing only he ordered a "NORMAL" portion of food, not everything giant size, and he actually lost weight, so it's all on what you need into import in order to properly export.

Last edited by KristyRusi : Thu, Jan-10-13 at 19:18.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 19:24
Rosebud's Avatar
Rosebud Rosebud is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23,881
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 235/135/135 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Kristy, have you looked through our recipe forums for inspiration? There is a sticky thread in each of the subforums with links to Induction suitable recipes. Here is the link: http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Thu, Jan-10-13, 19:52
livinright livinright is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,023
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 264/158/125 Female 64inches
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Florence, KY
Default

Allowed foods found here:
http://www.atkins.com/Program/Phase...this-Phase.aspx

If you want to lump everything to together, then it's technically 3 foods.... meat, fats and veggies.
Sounds like your "won't eat" food list is bigger than the can't afford list.
I started this diet eating very few of the allowed veggies. I didn't like most of them. But my tastes changed as I got use to not having sweets. I even did the "happy dance" in the frozen food isle over a new veggie blend once

Sometimes it's more how you think about things than anything else. If you focus on all the things you can have instead of all the things you can't, it becomes a better experience.

even if you're eating the same main ingredients over and over, you can doctor them up to add variety. I could eat beef and cabbage daily for weeks and not have the same exact dish twice.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:20.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.