The Atkins Diet

[spoonhandler]

Hazelip wrote:

Carbs do not mess with blood sugar levels at all unless you are diabetic. If your pancreas is functioning properly, it dumps insulin to maintain normal blood sugar levels.

Carbohydrates do not affect blood sugar levels unless you are diabetic? As far as I understand it, insulin is released in response to rising blood glucose and carbohydrates contribute to blood glucose. Type II diabetics produce plenty of insulin and have normal pancreatic activity, but the insulin is ineffective in reducing blood sugar levels because the cells do not respond to the insulin (that is, cells resist uptake of glucose as stimulated by insulin). It would seem this is a progressive disorder that may be reversible in the early stages by reducing carbohydrate intake and increasing physical activity. However, it is not yet clear whether weight gain leads to insulin-resistance or if insulin-resistance contributes to weight gain.

With regard to earlier statements about ketoacidosis and water intake: people attempting low-carb diets are advised to increase the amount of water they drink in order to assist the kidneys with the increase in the amount of protein in the diet. High protein diets can be detrimental to kidney function and, as most people with poor diets also do not drink enough water for healthy kidney function, the advice to drink more water is an attempt to protect renal function. High protein in the diet can mean more work for the kidneys so it's better to keep them in good nick.
Ketoacidosis (Diabetic Ketoacidosis: severe, out-of-control diabetes (high blood sugar) that needs emergency treatment. DKA happens when blood sugar levels get too high. This may happen because of illness, taking too little insulin, or getting too little exercise. The body starts using stored fat for energy, and ketone bodies (acids) build up in the blood. From http://www.diabetes.org.au/glossary.htm)
In type I diabetes, it occurs when insulin levels are so low that the body begins to break down fat for energy, producing ketones. Any diet that advocates inducing this situation as a means of losing weight is dangerous and irresponsible. Drinking more water will not prevent ketoacidosis from happening as far as I can see.

 

[kookbreaker]

http://icg.harvard.edu/~ext12057/LectureNotes/diabetes_lecture_notes.doc

From this site

Note all meals are 300 calories (kCal)

This says it better than I ever could.

D.

OK, I see what you're getting at. These are secondary effects and they will vary from person to person. Still, my point about calories still stands. Those 300 calories will become nearly 1/10 a pound of fat if not burned, no matter how they started off or what secondary effects they had on your appettite.

 

[DogB]

OK, I see what you're getting at. These are secondary effects and they will vary from person to person. Still, my point about calories still stands. Those 300 calories will become nearly 1/10 a pound of fat if not burned, no matter how they started off or what secondary effects they had on your appettite.

I still disagree but I think we're starting to argue in circles so I'm happy to leave it there.

Be well.

P.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

From the Atkins Center website
Ketosis is really a shortening of the term lipolysis/ketosis. Lipolysis simply means that you're burning your fat stores and using them as the source of fuel they were meant to be. The by-products of burning fat are ketones, so ketosis is a secondary process of lipolysis. When your body releases ketones in your urine, it is chemical proof that you’re consuming your own stored fat. And the more ketones you release, the more fat you have dissolved.

If you are restricting the amount of carbohydrates you eat, your body turns to fat as its alternative source of energy. In effect, lipolysis/ketosis has replaced the alternative of burning glucose for energy. Both are perfectly normal processes.

People (and even some ill-informed doctors) often confuse ketosis, which is a perfectly normal metabolic process, with ketoacidosis, which is a life-threatening condition. The latter is the consequence of insulin-deficient subjects having out-of-control blood sugar levels, a condition that can occur as well in alcoholics and people in a state of extreme starvation. Ketosis and ketoacidosis may sound vaguely alike, but the two conditions are virtually polar opposites and can always be distinguished from each other by the fact that the diabetic has been consuming excessive carbohydrates and has high blood sugar, in sharp contrast to the fortunate person who is doing Atkins.

Here is the link.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Those 300 calories will become nearly 1/10 a pound of fat if not burned, no matter how they started off or what secondary effects they had on your appettite.

If they are converted to fat. If they aren't, they won't.

What information do you have that proves they will be?(converted to fat)

P.S.
The reason I ask this, is the development of the Atkins plan, was encouraged by some studies that showed ,while some obese subjects who were on a 1,000 calorie diet, high in carbohydrates actually gained weight, similar subjects on a diet of 2,600 calories high in fat and protein lost weight.

These studies were documented, and they are borne out by the success that thousands of people have had with the Atkins plan.

 

[kookbreaker]

If they are converted to fat. If they aren't, they won't.

What information do you have that proves they will be?(converted to fat)

Where else will they go? There's no magic pixie in your body zapping away calories.

P.S.
The reason I ask this, is the development of the Atkins plan, was encouraged by some studies that showed ,while some obese subjects who were on a 1,000 calorie diet, high in carbohydrates actually gained weight, similar subjects on a diet of 2,600 calories high in fat and protein lost weight.

These studies were documented, and they are born out by the success that thousands of people have had with the Atkins plan.

I'd like a reference on that. Atkins has had no long term success studies TTBOMK.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Where else will they go? There's no magic pixie in your body zapping away calories.

Hint: A calorie is a unit of measure.

I'd like a reference on that. Atkins has had no long term success studies TTBOMK.

I don't have one. I'll see what I can find though.

 

[kookbreaker]

Hint: A calorie is a unit of measure.

I just went through this with the dog, m'kay? Its a unit of measure, but so is a foot. Move enough feet and you've walked a mile. Enough calories and you've got a pound of fat.

I don't have one. I'll see what I can find though. [/B]

 

[Genghis Pwn]

I'm almost positive that breads and pastas are broken down mainly into blood sugars and used by the body that away, so yeah, you can assume they trigger insulin release. That is why marathon runners and moutain climbers no longer "carbo load" the night before races... because by the time you wake up, your blood sugar levels have crashed.

Protien and fat, of course, are processed in different ways, not as sugars.

Two things...

1. Like someone else said, often when I start eating carbohydrates, it sends me into a frenzy of scarfing down more carbdohydrates. If I start eating Chips Ahoy cookies, for instance, I might eat the entire bag! Or Doritos, or whatever. But if I start eating deviled eggs, or cans of tuna, or steak, I never really eat than much.

2. I like to eat tuna straight from the can, mixed with olive oil. As far as I know, this extremely healthy, because olive oil is monounsaturated fat, the "good" kind. However, after I eat a can of tuna, my body seems to want some carbs too. And not fruits or wimpy veggies. What are some good suggestions? Potatoes? Hit me with some ideas for a tasty little dose of carbs after my tuna, Atkins worshipers!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Enough calories and you've got a pound of fat.

Wrong. And a good example of why there is so much misunderstanding about the metabolic process and why counting calories, accounts for the failure of virtually all diet plans.

 

[kookbreaker]

I'm almost positive that breads and pastas are broken down mainly into blood sugars and used by the body that away, so yeah, you can assume they trigger insulin release. That is why marathon runners and moutain climbers no longer "carbo load" the night before races... because by the time you wake up, your blood sugar levels have crashed.

Protien and fat, of course, are processed in different ways, not as sugars.

Two things...

1. Like someone else said, often when I start eating carbohydrates, it sends me into a frenzy of scarfing down more carbdohydrates. If I start eating Chips Ahoy cookies, for instance, I might eat the entire bag! Or Doritos, or whatever. But if I start eating deviled eggs, or cans of tuna, or steak, I never really eat than much.

Does pasta do the same thing? It might not be the carbs causing this to happen. Cookies and chips do have a goodly amoutn of fat in them as well, and theres the salt (Which your body also can 'crave')

 

[kookbreaker]

Wrong. And a good example of why there is so much misunderstanding about the metabolic process and why counting calories, accounts for the failure of virtually all diet plans.

Really? Is that why so many dietetic groups tell us that calories are what should be counted? They are wrong and you are right?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Really? Is that why so many dietetic groups tell us that calories are what should be counted? They are wrong and you are right?

Really.

Show me one of these ' dietetic groups ', that counts calories, and has demonstrated a high rate of success, regarding long term weight control, for the people who participate in their programs.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Does pasta do the same thing? It might not be the carbs causing this to happen. Cookies and chips do have a goodly amoutn of fat in them as well, and theres the salt (Which your body also can 'crave')

Pasta will do the same thing, but not as noticeably. People tend to eat much more pasta than they need because they do not feel satisfied as quickly.

Your body may crave salt at times, but usually this craving is completely satisfied by having a little salt. After that, the cravings should not appear for at least the rest of the day.

Sugar and carbohydrates are addictive because they give the body an energy rush. Unfortunately, that rush is followed by a blood-sugar crash and the need for more energy, thus hunger.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Really? Is that why so many dietetic groups tell us that calories are what should be counted? They are wrong and you are right?

Why is it that the diet industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, a large number of people are trying low-fat or calorie-counting diets, and the majority of Americans are overweight and obese?

The dietetic groups are wrong. Humans evolved to eat whenever possible and whatever possible. When a primitive human consumed sugar, his body would tell him to hold onto this source of energy and store it as fat for leaner times. The insulin management system in the body is still faulty in this aspect.

Yes, carbohydrates should not be cut out. Nor should natural sugars like those found in fruits, but you have to feed the body what it was designed to handle in order to keep everything in balance.

There are flaws with the Atkins diet, for sure, but it is becoming more apparent that low-carb diets actually work and are better for your health.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

2. I like to eat tuna straight from the can, mixed with olive oil. As far as I know, this extremely healthy, because olive oil is monounsaturated fat, the "good" kind. However, after I eat a can of tuna, my body seems to want some carbs too. And not fruits or wimpy veggies. What are some good suggestions? Potatoes? Hit me with some ideas for a tasty little dose of carbs after my tuna, Atkins worshipers!

Tuna is indeed very good for you, but potatoes are not. Potatoes are loaded with carbs without being very well packed with actual nutrients. You may actually be craving the salt in this case. A few pork rinds can take care of that, but you have to be careful about pork rinds to some extent.

I usually have a pickle with my tuna.

 

[kookbreaker]

Really.

Show me one of these ' dietetic groups ', that counts calories, and has demonstrated a high rate of success, regarding long term weight control, for the people who participate in their programs.

*sigh*

Howstuff works

The myth that some kinds of calories are different from others - A calorie is a calorie. If you consume 4,000 calories by eating 1,000 grams of white sugar or 4,000 calories by eating 444 grams of fat, it is still 4,000 calories.

lowfatlifestyle

If you want to lose weight, CALORIES DO COUNT! If you want to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. All physical activity burns calories, even activities like standing, sitting and sleeping. However, the more vigorous an activity, the more calories burned. To lose 1 pound, you must burn 3500 excess calories (500 calories per day over the course of a week).

Soyouwanna lose weight

A pound of fat represents approximately 3500 calories of stored energy. In order to lose a pound of fat, you have to use 3500 more calories than you consume.

MeadJohnson, nutritionists

To lose one pound, you need to burn 3,500 more Calories than you consume. In other words, you need to create a 3,500-calorie deficit. The best way to do this is slowly — over time.

Medline plus part of our gov'ts health info.

The key to weight control is keeping energy intake (food) and energy output (physical activity) in balance. When you consume only as many calories as your body needs, your weight will usually remain constant. If you take in more calories than your body needs, you will put on excess fat. If you expend more energy than you take in you will burn excess fat.

Diet and Fitness resrouces (UK)

Our bodies are very clever in their use and storage of calories. If the calories we consume on a daily basis are roughly equal to the calories we expend, our bodies will neither store any calories, nor use any from its stores, and we'll maintain our weight at its current level. If we consume more calories than we expend, our bodies will store the excess calories as fat, and we'll gain weight. If we consume fewer calories than we expend, our bodies will use their stores to make up the deficit, and we'll lose weight. It's that simple.

 

[kookbreaker]

Why is it that the diet industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, a large number of people are trying low-fat or calorie-counting diets, and the majority of Americans are overweight and obese?

Thre's a host of reasons why diets do not work. Mostly because peopel do not stay on them. A diet is a lifestyle, not something you try for a few months. Cutting out all fats, all protiens, or all carbs is a mistake and unhealthy.

The dietetic groups are wrong. Humans evolved to eat whenever possible and whatever possible. When a primitive human consumed sugar, his body would tell him to hold onto this source of energy and store it as fat for leaner times. The insulin management system in the body is still faulty in this aspect.

Sorry, but the medical evidence says otherwise. A calorie is a calorie. The only difference is what comes in with them.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Thre's a host of reasons why diets do not work. Mostly because peopel do not stay on them. A diet is a lifestyle, not something you try for a few months. Cutting out all fats, all protiens, or all carbs is a mistake and unhealthy.

I agree. The low-carb diets do not advocate cutting out carbs, or anything but sugar, for that matter.

Sorry, but the medical evidence says otherwise. A calorie is a calorie. The only difference is what comes in with them.

You keep saying this, but we keep arguing that the effect different foods have on the body is different. Sugars and carbohydrates adversely effect blood-sugar levels. This causes hunger and cues the body to store additional calories as fat. It also puts additional strain on the pancreas.

Everyone is reluctant to give low-carb diets a chance because we have been told for decades that fat is the worst offender. Fat is not great for the body either (although it needs it), but the human body evolved to handle extreme quantities of it. Carbohydates and sugars are relatively new to the human digestive system.

 

[kookbreaker]

You keep saying this, but we keep arguing that the effect
different foods have on the body is different.

I keep saying this becuase people keep telling me when I say:

Enough calories and you've got a pound of fat.

I get replies like:

Diogenes wrote
Wrong. And a good example of why there is so much misunderstanding about the metabolic process and why counting calories, accounts for the failure of virtually all diet plans.

Sorry folks, hunger patterns and other stuff are secondary effects. Your body will store excess calories as fat, PERIOD!!! Eat 3000 calores of beef jerky (for protein rich) and burn only 2000 a day, you'll have an extra pound of fat on your bod in 3.5 days.

Same as if you ate 3000 calories of shortening (fat fat fat)

Same as if you ate 3000 calories worth of sugar (carb carb carb).

You can point that this triggers that, but that does not make my initial point wrong.



(edited 'cause I forgot a '0')