• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Apparently the Atkins diet does work

The Horizon special seemed to reference studies that show Atkins works: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkins.shtml

But the point of the show was that the best scientific explanation comes from studies showing most people on the Atkins diet consume fewer calories and other studies showing that although increasing the amount of fat in food increases hunger, increasing the intake of protein inhibits hunger.

So if you just can't stop yourself from eating more than you need, try increasing the percentage of protein in your diet.
 
The South Beach Diet seems like the "middle way" of low carb diets. I have a friend on it. She's lost about 15 pounds and most of her meals seem very sensible...lots of chicken with vegetables, it seems. Anyone else try it?
 
I think the one thing that's very clear, and conclusive is that the only diet that works is the physics diet - you consume fewer calories than you expend - simple as that... yeah you need a balanced diet as well, but that's the only way anyone is gonna lose weight over a long period.. as a bonus, recent article in New Scientist, or Scientific america, can't remember which, said that a reduced calorie intake actually increased life expectancy, so double bonus!
 
What's so hard to understand? Use more calories than you consume and you will lose weight. Make sure you have a wholesome, balanced and varied diet within that regime, and you won't get sick or need vitamin pills. Makes for short diet books though...
 
Zep said:
What's so hard to understand? Use more calories than you consume and you will lose weight. Make sure you have a wholesome, balanced and varied diet within that regime, and you won't get sick or need vitamin pills. Makes for short diet books though...

snap! lol
 
I think this is very telling:

In the second study, a team from Duke University followed 120 overweight people and found those on the low-carb diet who also took a variety of vitamins and supplements lost an average of 26 pounds (12 kg), compared to an average of 14 pounds (6 kg) on a low-fat diet after six months.

However, the low-fat dieters lowered their cholesterol levels more, reducing their risk of heart disease.
 
Most diets work if you follow them. The problem with diets is that they are not the answer to overweight. Diets are good for two things:

- If you just discovered that you put on a couple of pounds and want to get into your best dress/tuxedo/swimming suit again.

- If you are seriously overweight and your doctor orders you to loose weight fast because you health is otherwise in imminent jeopardy. In this case, the doctor should also advice and monitor your diet.

The problem about diets is that they don't solve the basic problem: Your lifestyle causes you to become overweight. If you are overweight and want to change that permanently, change your lifestyle. You will loose weight automatically.

Hans
 
TruthSeeker said:
The South Beach Diet seems like the "middle way" of low carb diets. I have a friend on it. She's lost about 15 pounds and most of her meals seem very sensible...lots of chicken with vegetables, it seems. Anyone else try it?

I read about it once, it didn't seem to be a million miles from Atkins - fruit is off the menu for the first couple of weeks, carbohydrate is frowned upon. Meals seem to be big on grilled meat, vegetables, nuts and things like low-fat yoghurt and cheese.

It's suggested that you should be careful about eating some vegetables - particularly high carb ones like carrots and parsnips. Now, I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously any diet where a carrot - a ferking carrot!! - is seen as a hugely decadent treat. "Ooh, I know I shouldn't, but I think I might have this raw carrot. Just the one, though!"
 
JamesM said:


I read about it once, it didn't seem to be a million miles from Atkins - fruit is off the menu for the first couple of weeks, carbohydrate is frowned upon. Meals seem to be big on grilled meat, vegetables, nuts and things like low-fat yoghurt and cheese.

It's suggested that you should be careful about eating some vegetables - particularly high carb ones like carrots and parsnips. Now, I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously any diet where a carrot - a ferking carrot!! - is seen as a hugely decadent treat. "Ooh, I know I shouldn't, but I think I might have this raw carrot. Just the one, though!"


I didn't know about the carrot. That's hysterical....or I need more coffee...really, this shouldn't be so funny :D
 
JamesM said:


I read about it once, it didn't seem to be a million miles from Atkins - fruit is off the menu for the first couple of weeks, carbohydrate is frowned upon. Meals seem to be big on grilled meat, vegetables, nuts and things like low-fat yoghurt and cheese.

It's suggested that you should be careful about eating some vegetables - particularly high carb ones like carrots and parsnips. Now, I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously any diet where a carrot - a ferking carrot!! - is seen as a hugely decadent treat. "Ooh, I know I shouldn't, but I think I might have this raw carrot. Just the one, though!"

The South beach diet is not a low carb diet, you only consume less carbs than normal in the first two weeks (Phase 1) and the beginning of phase 2 in which you slowly ramp up your intake of 'good' carbs. Once you have ramped up in phase two you eat plenty of carbs and generally the same ratio as traditional diets, you just dont eat bad carbs.

Regarding carrots, they have 'bad' carbs, but in very low concentrations. Although the diet does say its better to avoid them, really they are ok eaten in moderation. In order for carrots to really be bad, you would have to eat much more than anyone ever would in a serving. They arent considered a treat. Watermelons are similar. An example of bad veggies and fruits are potatoes and bannanas.
 
It was my understanding of that study that the low-fat dieters eventually caught up to the Atkins dieters in their weight loss. And that the Atkins type dieters put it back on faster.

My problem with Atkins dieters (just the ones I know, obviously) is that they don't seem to think that calories still matter. A local fast food chain offers a low carb breakfast bowl. Only 5 carbs. But it has 900 calories! My neighbor thinks it's great. She gets one almost every morning on her way to work.
 
Bananas?? Why bananas? Are they really starchy? Potatoes are really starchy and get converted to sugar. I can see that no prob.


Is it true that Atkins dieters have really bad breath? Why?
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Bananas?? Why bananas? Are they really starchy? Potatoes are really starchy and get converted to sugar. I can see that no prob.


Is it true that Atkins dieters have really bad breath? Why?

They get bad breath from ketosis--which is a build up of ketones in the blood. It all has to do with insulin and diabetes. When I was pregnant with son #1, I had gestational diabetes and had to check my ketone levels every morning. Atkins dieters are actually trying to get into this state of too much ketones. When I was preggers, it was a bad thing.

I could find the whole explanation (there's a good article about Atkins diet in the newest Skeptic magazine), but I'm about to go to the gym. I'm trying to lose weight the old fashioned way. Eat less, exercise more.
 
Lisa Simpson said:
Atkins dieters are actually trying to get into this state of too much ketones. When I was preggers, it was a bad thing.
Ketosis happens because of too little glucose in the cells. It's all about the citric acid cycle. This is the main second-stage energy metabolism pathway, and it takes in both the products of glycolysis (which breaks down glucose, the end-stage of the digestion of carbohydrates) and the products of fatty acid oxidation (metabolism of fat).

To keep going, the citric acid cycle requires a supply of oxaloacetate, which can only come from glycolysis. Fatty acids don't produce it. So unless there is sufficient carbohydrate being broken down, the citric acid cycle grinds to an unceremonious halt and the products of fatty acid breakdown have nowhere to go. Except to become ketones.

The formation of ketones is a sort of sideways shunt to get rid of the products of fatty acid metabolism if they can't go the proper route, through the citric acid cycle. The point is that they still have quite a lot of energy left in them, they're really quite nutritious (ruminants actully utilise them a different way, via the ruminal micro-organisms). So if you're peeing out ketones rather than letting the fat be metabolised fully, obviously you're not getting the full energetic beneit of the catabolised fuel. It's a wasteful system, and it will promote weight loss just as a badly tuned engine will empty your petrol tank much sooner if it's only allowing you 20 miles to the gallon instead of 35.

And it makes you smell of ketones and it's a horribly unhealthy way to be and who cares if it works, anybody who does this on purpose is certifiably nuts.

This sort of ketosis (starvation, basically) is associated with low or maybe normal blood glucose. There's nothing stopping the glucose getting into the cells, the deficiency is in glucose (carbohydrate) intake. Diabetic ketoacidosis in contrast is associated with high blood glucose. The problem there is that the glucose can't get into the cells to get at the cytoplasm and the mitochondria where all this happens, because the insulin it needs to get past the cell membrane isn't there. It stays in the circulation and gets peed out unmetabolised. Same effect, but different way of getting there.

Of course you panic if a diabetic becomes ketotic, it means there's bugger-all glucose getting into the cells so things ain't good. But if your goal is to lose as much weight as possible, then I suppose ketosis becomes desirable as it shows that you've taken in so little glucose that even your fat metabolism has become inefficient.

They're all mad, I tell you.

Rolfe.

You know, these metabolic pathways, the workings of the body on the molecular level, and the real "energy" of life we can measure and quantify and manipulate, are just wonderfully fascinating. Why does anyone need woo-woo fantasies about mystical energies and vital forces when there's all this real, demonstrable, totally absorbing stuff to be amazed about?
 
Speaking of mad...


My wife's grandfather was recently hospitalized. He's had recurring problems with both his liver and kidneys, and IIRC is down to around 50% function in each. Well, his problems got worse over a few weeks and he had to be hospitalized.

He had (against the direct advice of his physician) gone on the Atkins diet :eek:

Sometimes people just don't stop to think.
 
Personally, I don't care if the Atkins diet allows you to lose 40 lbs a month, I just can't survive on what it calls for.

I need a good glass of merlot, some linguini, and a baguette every now and then.
 
Rolfe said:

(Buncha stuff about ketones)

According to Atkins (I've got The Book in hand), ketoacidosis and ketosis are different things. Ketoacidosis is related to diabetes and involves out-of-control blood sugar; Atkins sought a state of ketosis/lypolysis, where ketones in the urine resulted from metabolism of fats.

Can't go into more detail now - gotta go. It's on page 95 of the paperback edition of the New Diet Revolution. I'd like to see more info about what Atkins claims in that - Atkins certainly had something to sell, and so relying on him for primary information is risky.

did
 
Huntsman said:
Speaking of mad...


My wife's grandfather was recently hospitalized. He's had recurring problems with both his liver and kidneys, and IIRC is down to around 50% function in each. Well, his problems got worse over a few weeks and he had to be hospitalized.

He had (against the direct advice of his physician) gone on the Atkins diet :eek:

Sometimes people just don't stop to think.

Evidence that the two were related?

Atkins does say in The Book that high protien consumption is bad if your kidney function is already impaired. But no studies have connected a low-carb diet to impairing healthy kidneys.

did
 
Oh boy, and Atkins thread! I know I'm just a sample of one, but here's my experience.

I have been eating a low carb diet since the last week of January. I started at 278 lbs, and am now about 238 lbs. I figure about 5 to 10 lbs of that was water, the rest blubber.

I'm not really following Atkins, but doing low carb my own way. I have been counting calories as well as carbohydrates and my weight loss is pretty much what I'd expect based on the reduced calorie intake alone. Calories do count, IMO. I just find it a lot easier to keep my calorie count where I want it by eating low carb than eating any other way.

Actually if I was strictly following Atkins I'd be eating a lot more vegetables than I do. Most people have no idea that on Atkins diet you are supposed to eat quite a few veggies. I didn't eat many before I started this, so I figure I'm no worse off.

I also don't pay any attention to whether or not I'm in ketosis like a lot of other low carb eaters do. I have done this in the past but just don't find it to be at all helpful.

I haven't been sick during the last few months. I feel as good as ever, if not better. I don't seem to have lost any muscle or strength. So far I have seen no ill effects from eating the way I am, and I don't expect any based on what I have read. I'm keeping close watch just in case.

The plan is to go to the end of July, then have my blood tested to see how I'm doing. My chlorestorol was pretty high the one and only time I had it checked. I'm rapidly approaching geezerhood and that's one of the reasons I'm doing this. If all is OK, I plan to continue until I've hit about 200 to 210 lbs (I'm 6' 3"), then increase my calorie and carb count. I'm not sure what I'll do if my bloodwork is worse than before. I don't have any reasons to expect it will be, so I don't think I'll bother planning for it.
 

Back
Top Bottom