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 > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-09, 21:16
Citruskiss Citruskiss is offline
I've decided
Posts: 16,864
 
Plan: LC
Stats: 235/137.6/130 Female 5' 5"
BF:haven't a clue
Progress: 93%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnmLisa
I'm confused--isn't that why Dr. A has the carb ladder and Dr. Eades has Phases 1,2,3 and South Beach has it's phases? Scratching my head.

But of course no one ever follows the carb ladder or transitions to the next level. It's the mentality if I lose on 20 so well then I'll stick to 20 and of course after awhile they stall out but instead of going to the next phase/level they begin to tweak and fat fast and this and that. And when people do add carbs, it's very rare that it's more veg first--it's always nuts, cheese, frankenfoods (ok, ok, not everybody but you guys get my drift) I just shake my head--why is it that no one wants to do the plan as written. Hmmmmm....I think Dr. Atkins developed the carb ladder for a reason, as well as Eades and Angoston. Ok, now that I've butchered everybodies plan.....I'm slinking away

and what about all the other variables--such as thyroid, peri and menopause, sleep disorders, stress, cortisol levels.....the list goes on and on.


You are 100% right about this. I am one of those who didn't move on up the carb ladder, and as a result - this whole thing has taken much longer than it should have.

Meanwhile, somewhere in there, I decided to take a really close look at the Atkins plan, and realized that I was supposed to be making sure that 'most' of my carbs were coming from vegetables. So, I tried that - actually eating the three cups of vegetables alloted in Atkins induction - and the weight flew off.

I wonder if these stalls that Jenny refers to are related to 'endless induction' type plans?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-09, 21:41
LAwoman75's Avatar
LAwoman75 LAwoman75 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,741
 
Plan: Whole food, semi low carb
Stats: 165/165/140 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Ozark Mt's
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citruskiss
I wonder if these stalls that Jenny refers to are related to 'endless induction' type plans?


Very good question. I know from reading experience on this forum, I see very few people move up on the carb ladder. Most see to stay at or near induction levels.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-09, 22:16
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

Quote:
Thyroid slowing. Long term low carbing causes changes in T3 hormone levels which are often hard to diagnose. It can cause something called "Euthyroid syndrome." I learned about this from Lyle Macdonald's book, The Ketogenic Diet, which has cites to the relevant research. Getting help for this problem is very hard as your TSH will be fine and standard thyroid testing may not pick it up.

Don't blame the absence of carbohydrate for a problem that was certainly caused by the abundance of carbohydrate to begin with. As far as I know, there is no such thing as carbohydrate deficiency.
Quote:
Physiologically what seems to happen is that your body responds to months of ketogenic dieting by assuming you are starving--people who are starving are in ketosis all the time too. So it turns down the thermostat to conserve your body mass so you don't die. If this happens to you you'll know it. You'll feel exhausted and dragged out all the time, and the burst of energy most people feel when they start out low carbing will be a distant memory.

That is pure speculation. And, my personal experience contradicts the paragraph above. Almost two years after I have cut out all carbs, I have more energy than ever.
Quote:
I personally maintain now at an intake that varies from 70-110 grams a day (my ketogenic boundary is at about 65 grams a day.)

The toxic level for carbohydrate is 86 grams (70lbs per year) per day for 20 years. I fail to comprehend the reasoning behind increasing carbohydrate intake to toxic level.
Quote:
Fat-induced insulin resistance. There is some interesting research that has been discussed on the Whole Health Source Blog about how, and more importantly, why, palmitic acid, a saturated fat might raise insulin resistance in rodents. There are a lot of other studies over the years that have demonstrated that high saturated fat intakes of all kinds increase insulin resistance too.

The paragraph above implies that insulin resistance drives hyperinsulinemia. In fact, it's the other way around. It's hyperinsulinemia that drives insulin resistance. This "fat-induced" insulin resistance does not drive hyperinsulinemia (therefore can't cause obesity) because it's not insulin resistance that drives hyperinsulinemia.
Quote:
and that after many months of eating very high fat/low carb diets this increase in IR can become a huge problem especially when people experience "carb creep."

The paragraph above is logically fallacious. We can't blame fat-induced insulin resistance for the carb creep.
Quote:
If you are eating over 60 grams a day, cut back on the saturated fat and see if that helps.

The advice above is based on absolutely zero evidence of any healthful benefit whatsoever. In fact, it's based on the "fat-induced insulin resistance" logical fallacy.
Quote:
I am starting to think the very high fat low carb diet is only appropriate with extremely low carb intake levels.

Where is the evidence that a high fat diet is detrimental? There is none. How can we then conclude that a high fat diet becomes bad when we introduce carbohydrate? The logic escapes me. When we introduce carbohydrate to a high fat diet, then it stops being a high fat diet.
Quote:
For those of us eating low carb to control blood sugar, a higher carb intake may be necessary to keep ourselves from experiencing diet burn out.

To paraphrase Spock, that is illogical.
Quote:
If your blood sugar is under control at a higher carb intake, your health is fine.

If you carbohydrate intake is at or above 86g per day for 20 years, then no, your health is not fine at all, regardless of your blood sugar measurements. Further, blood sugar is highly inaccurate as a marker of health, or disease. I know one person, who is clearly obese and diagnosed diabetic, yet when he takes the GTT, he registers as normal.
Quote:
Stalling Is Built Into the System.

Really? What's the mechanism, then?
Quote:
Calories Do Count.

Yes, they do. But, alas, not as you see it now. The Thyroid slow down hypothesis is highly unlikely based on the simple fact that when we are actively losing fat, this fat is added to the total available energy, therefore we have more energy, not less.
Quote:
and the only way most of us (not all, but most) lose any more weight is by cutting back on our food intake.

Once I'm done ripping this piece to shreds, you'll see that this is the worst thing you can do to pass a stall.


The entire blog post is based on the simple Ein-Eout hypothesis. If we eat less, we shrink. Even when the article deals with hormones, i.e. the thyroid and the hormones it secretes, the underlying intent is to affect Eout, i.e. how much energy we spend and thus what kind of caloric deficit we can create. It's not what kinds of hormones control fat tissue, or how hormones and enzymes do their job, but it's all about Eout and how much of a caloric deficit we can create with those hormones so that the surplus fat is used up in the process. As we've seen elsewhere in some experiments, it's entirely possible to lose weight even in a very significant apparent caloric surplus.

No, when fat loss stalls, the best thing to do is not to cut down on total food intake (to reduce Ein, which would cause Eout to decrease as well thereby making the problem worse), but rather to increase food intake in order to increase Eout.

Further, if the ultimate goal of that blog post was to end with "do it for your health, not for your weight", then the entire post contradicts itself by presenting advice to increase carbohydrate intake for various reasons.


I forgot. When the system gets smaller, Eout gets smaller as well. In other words, when you lose fat, you lose fat slower and slower. Don't confuse slowing down with stalling out.

Last edited by M Levac : Mon, Oct-05-09 at 22:28.
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-09, 22:29
AJCole AJCole is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 199
 
Plan: protien power
Stats: 185/155/135 Female 64"
BF:
Progress:
Default

Well, I am an estrogen dominant 42 yoa woman. I supplement bio-identical progesterone in accordance with my symptoms to keep cramps, headache, etc. at bay. I prefer a ketogenic diet mostly because I love the way I feel on it. I feel tired when I eat too many carbs. I'm never giving up my saturated fat intake, mainly because of the Weston Price work. I would like to be lower weight, but this is secondary to my health, which is monitored pretty strictly by the VA. I agree with Valtor, calories are unimportant. We are not machines. BUT, I do think portion size matters. I really think the issue of stalls is greater with women who are cycling estrogen. Our bodies want to save up energy to feed babies whether we want them to or not. Barry Groves points out that you cannot go underweight with a ketogenic diet. This is important. Perhaps some people have a thyroid problem, but maybe we have unrealistic images of stick thin models stuck in our brains and real women really do save up for babies. I'm a grandmother now and not having any more babies, but all my fat is in my jiggly woman parts and not a bit of it on my belly! When I see belly fat, I see sugar. When I see woman fat, I see a woman.
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-09, 22:41
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

Here is an alternative: Intermittent fasting. The purpose? To keep insulin as low as possible for as long as possible. How it works? When insulin is low, fat can escape fat tissue more quickly than when insulin is higher. The longer insulin is low, the longer fat escapes from fat tissue.

If we eat, for example, three meals per day, that's three times per day when insulin is higher than base. How long insulin remains higher than base after ameal, I don't know. But, I'm pretty sure it still comes up to a longer total time per day than if we eat only once per day, even if we eat as much during the short eating window.

At least, that's how I see it.
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 02:52
amandawald amandawald is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,737
 
Plan: Ray Peat (not low-carb)
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 164cm
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Brit in Europe
Default

Hiya Martin,

Just wanted to comment on these two things you wrote:

Quote:
And, my personal experience contradicts the paragraph above. Almost two years after I have cut out all carbs, I have more energy than ever.


One explanation for this could be that the relatively high amount of protein you are ingesting causes a huge adrenaline rush because adrenaline is needed to help convert protein to sugar. This is the ZCers equivalent to the runner's high, which would explain why you feel so energized. However, it may well be possible that this excessive adrenaline output will wear out your adrenal glands in the long run and you'll end up with chronic fatigue syndrome.

Quote:
The toxic level for carbohydrate is 86 grams (70lbs per year) per day for 20 years.


Toxic, schmoxic!!! Who says? For which people? Who got measured? Please quote me some studies using human beings who consumed exactly 87g of carbs per day for twenty years and then demonstrated some horrible side-effect. These numbers can only have been extrapolated from something else and represent codswallop of the highest order. Go and visit the Kitavans, who eat lots of carbs, smoke like chimneys and still remain healthy.

Quote:
I fail to comprehend the reasoning behind increasing carbohydrate intake to toxic level.


I fail to understand deliberately wearing out your adrenal glands through excessive protein consumption.

But there you go, it's a free country and we're all free to do what we want to our bodies, based on the knowledge we currently believe in.

amanda
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 05:03
LAwoman75's Avatar
LAwoman75 LAwoman75 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,741
 
Plan: Whole food, semi low carb
Stats: 165/165/140 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Ozark Mt's
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Here is an alternative: Intermittent fasting. The purpose? To keep insulin as low as possible for as long as possible. How it works? When insulin is low, fat can escape fat tissue more quickly than when insulin is higher. The longer insulin is low, the longer fat escapes from fat tissue.

If we eat, for example, three meals per day, that's three times per day when insulin is higher than base. How long insulin remains higher than base after ameal, I don't know. But, I'm pretty sure it still comes up to a longer total time per day than if we eat only once per day, even if we eat as much during the short eating window.

At least, that's how I see it.


What about the numerous people who have made it to goal and maintained under the principles that the article describes? What do you have to say about that? Instead of trying to shred the article to pieces because it goes against what YOU think , take a looks at the human results, like myself.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 06:00
starxsoul starxsoul is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 76
 
Plan: VLC/HF
Stats: 180/137.5/135 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: US
Default

I think it'd be pretty difficult to pinpoint EXACTLY why people stall on LC, simply because there are so many people (using the successful losers/maintainers on this board as the sample) who've reached and maintained their goals using different incarnations of LC. I know it's almost an overused phrase here -- but YMMV seems to be the rule when it comes to success on LC. Some people do better lowering fat, or upping it, raising carbs, slashing them to zero...it just depends. Pointing fingers and crying "Your way is WRONG!" is fruitless because there is more than one way to be successful on LC.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 06:00
Bat Spit Bat Spit is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,051
 
Plan: paleo-ish
Stats: 482/400/240 Female 68 inches
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: DC Area
Default

I'm not over 45, but I am 41.

I started out at 482. I lost 115 lbs like the drop of a hat, and there I sat for the next 3 years. I did everything, more exercise, less exercise, higher fat, more veggies. Everything. NOTHING. All I managed was to maintain, which is nothing to sneeze at, but not what I was looking for.


Quote:
after happily eating bacon and eggs in the morning with no added carbs at all for the last couple of years and finding that this meal kept me going for a good few hours, I discovered that if I added one potato - 15g of carbs - into the fry-up mix, this meal would keep me going even longer!!!


I recently found this too. I can consume a lot fewer calories and be perfectly content at a higher carb level. Right around 100 seems to be working for me right now.

Quote:
But again there is a causal agent here. An hormonal imbalance or missing feedback loop. It's still not about calories. As long as people believe it is about calories, they won't even look for what causes them to gain weight.


I'm afraid I'm with Nancy, call me back when you're a middle aged woman.

I'll certainly say that calories aren't the only issue. Its much easier to lose when your insulin isn't sky high, or your cortisol, and your body is much more inclined to work properly and find its own balance with plenty of real nutritious food. However, once your body is horribly out of balance and some systems aren't working correctly, I believe its quite likely that controlling calories may be one of the only ways to correct some of the damage. I've tried just about everything else I can think of, including a very restrictive diet in terms of food choices to work around food sensitivities, and I've come to the conclusion that we may not have sufficient scientific knowledge to actually fix my problem, because we don't have sufficient data to even precisely identify my exact problem.

Lower calories with controlled carbs may be a chewing-gum-and-bailing-wire patch to my metabolic problem, but it is working and I feel better than I have in years. And I'm not talking crazy low calorie either. 2000 calories and 75-100 carbs average, carefully avoiding food sensitivities, and I'm finally having some serious, reliable results.

I haven't really changed my position on saturated fat. I never use anything else unless its on salad. Bacon dripping and coconut oil are my fats of choice.

Last edited by Bat Spit : Tue, Oct-06-09 at 06:08.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 06:05
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAwoman75
What about the numerous people who have made it to goal and maintained under the principles that the article describes? What do you have to say about that? Instead of trying to shred the article to pieces because it goes against what YOU think , take a looks at the human results, like myself.

If someone really really wants to, they can even maintain their weight after weight loss on weight watchers! What we are saying is why keep fighting your body for the rest of your life, when all you have to do is nourish it properly?

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 06:21
LAwoman75's Avatar
LAwoman75 LAwoman75 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,741
 
Plan: Whole food, semi low carb
Stats: 165/165/140 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Ozark Mt's
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtor
If someone really really wants to, they can even maintain their weight after weight loss on weight watchers! What we are saying is why keep fighting your body for the rest of your life, when all you have to do is nourish it properly?

Patrick


Exactly, why keep fighting your body?? Why do you continue to try lower, lowering more, lowest carb intake when that may not be what you are needing to do. I'm not fighting my body at all and I nourish it properly with delicious whole foods.

And yes, there are people who maintain with WW, and there are many on this forum who are maintaining (happily I might add) while eating these so called toxic levels of carbs from fruits and veggies.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 06:25
OregonRose's Avatar
OregonRose OregonRose is offline
Wag more, bark less.
Posts: 692
 
Plan: Meat.
Stats: 216/149/145 Female 65.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Eugene
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
I'm really interested in hearing is about people who totally stalled on low carb for many, many months if not years and found something that kicked the weight loss into gear again. Especially women over 45!


Nancy, I'll be 46 in a couple of months, perimenopausal, and had been stalled--or bouncing around the same five or six pounds--for well over a year. My experience has been the opposite of some of the women posting here. Every time I've raised my carbs, even slightly, the scale has gone up. When I did the Dr. K "plan"--in quotes because I never got the book, just followed along from the thread here--just adding in one slice of pumpernickel or a small amount of potatoes per day drove my weight up by ten pounds. I had been stalled in the low 170s, and after seven weeks, was up to 182.

I went back to VLC, got my weight down to the low 170s again, and stalled again for several months. Two weeks ago, I decided to try ZC, and I'm at 167 this morning (and, just as a grace note, my period, should it decide to come this month, is due today, so my "real" weight may be even lower).

My experience has been boringly linear, I'm afraid. Carbs=body fat, full stop. And when I look at my family history--all obese, decades before the obesity epidemic--I know I can't have even so-called moderate amounts. Just as I would never knowingly ingest a "moderate" amount of arsenic.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 06:28
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat Spit
...I've tried just about everything else I can think of, including a very restrictive diet in terms of food choices to work around food sensitivities...

Have you tried "beef and water only" for 6 months non stop without any cheats whatsoever? I know that it's not fun, but that would more than probably work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat Spit
...and I've come to the conclusion that we may not have sufficient scientific knowledge to actually fix my problem, because we don't have sufficient data to even precisely identify my exact problem...

This is certainly true. But from my perspective, I find that people (including myself) simply don't want to accept the truth when it comes to what causes them to gain or stall. There are some things we are not prepared to accept and to do forever.

So we stay in denial and we continue to look for another cause even when we probably know what it is already. Some people are simply too sensitive to carbs, meaning that they are so insulin resistant that anything that keeps insulin a bit highish in between meals will prevent weight loss.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 06:35
amandawald amandawald is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,737
 
Plan: Ray Peat (not low-carb)
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 164cm
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Brit in Europe
Default

Hi there Batspit!

You wrote this above:

Quote:
However, once your body is horribly out of balance and some systems aren't working correctly, I believe its quite likely that controlling calories may be one of the only ways to correct some of the damage.


Precisely! To the part above which I have bolded. It was such an eye-opener to me to read about weakened adrenals and finally work out that I had finally found - at least I think so, so far - a key element to my being able to improve my general health and maybe extend my "good years".

Now that I know what kind of damage caffeine and alcohol have been doing to my adrenals and how much ingesting these chemicals has depleted my magnesium supplies (causing further damage to my adrenal glands), I finally feel that I will be able to really tackle the issue of weaning myself off these chemicals for good.

Quote:
I've tried just about everything else I can think of..


Are you familiar with adrenal fatigue? Is that something you have looked into as well? Schwarzbein is well worth reading on the subject.

amanda
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Tue, Oct-06-09, 06:42
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by amandawood
One explanation for this could be that the relatively high amount of protein you are ingesting causes a huge adrenaline rush because adrenaline is needed to help convert protein to sugar. This is the ZCers equivalent to the runner's high, which would explain why you feel so energized. However, it may well be possible that this excessive adrenaline output will wear out your adrenal glands in the long run and you'll end up with chronic fatigue syndrome.

That's pure speculation and gratuitous fear mongering.
Quote:
Toxic, schmoxic!!! Who says? For which people? Who got measured? Please quote me some studies using human beings who consumed exactly 87g of carbs per day for twenty years and then demonstrated some horrible side-effect. These numbers can only have been extrapolated from something else and represent codswallop of the highest order. Go and visit the Kitavans, who eat lots of carbs, smoke like chimneys and still remain healthy.

Gary Taubes, Good Calories Bad Calories. I forget which page at the moment.
Quote:
I fail to understand deliberately wearing out your adrenal glands through excessive protein consumption.

Fear mongering again.
Quote:
But there you go, it's a free country and we're all free to do what we want to our bodies, based on the knowledge we currently believe in.

Speculation and fear mongering is knowledge now?
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 22:55.


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