Well I'm not a practicioner of the Atkins diet. Apparently though Subway has offical Atkins-approved lunch wraps now. The turkey-bacon wrap looked good, and I get annoyed by the amount of bread anyway so I tried one.
It was quite good, cost less than a 6-inch meal and filled me up more.
I heartily endorse the product.
AJ
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What is the essence of this Atkin's diet? I don't understand diets.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
There are books on the Atkins diet, but it is mostly protein based.
From what I understand for the first few weeks you eat a very very strict diet to force your body into ketosis (a kind of metabolism that burns fat) This is the part doctors and nutritionists get upset about, and should be done very carefully. Then, after two weeks of the extreme regimen, you increase your food intake and variety, but limit carbs and do mainly protein based stuff.
Papa Moose knows all about it, that is just what I've gleaned and may not be accurate.
AJ
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
It works for some people, but it's not for everyone... And you have to follow the regimen very specifically if you do do it, or it can wreak havok on your system.
I was miserable on the Atkins diet, I only realized how miserable after I got off it. I don't know that it's dangerous, but it certainly made me sick.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Diets are silly. Just eat right and exercise and everything will be fine.
Posted by seriousfun (Member # 4732) on :
Diets are silly, especially ones that make their inventor filthy rich. Eat less and excersise more...
I did lose, in the last 6 weeks, 11 pounds, from following Atkins. I really didn't eat too many calories or much junk, but my body needed the jump-start that the Atkins induction gave.
The good thing about this is that you won't starve. You can eat pretty much as much protein and fat as you want, along with a few veggie carbs to keep your body working. I never actually went into ketosis according to the pee-strips, but I did lose the weight and didn't suffer any ill effects.
You can learn everything you need from www.atkins.com, for free, and you don't need to buy any of the overpriced over-processed Atkins brand food.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I thought this was going to be a thread about how to grill a steak while riding mass transit.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You gain it all back.
Atkins does work for most people, but once you start eating carbs again, you gain it all back. Completely. And you've lowered your metabolism, so its harder to lose the next time.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
"You gain it all back" is pretty much true of every diet there is.
I eat something like the Atkins diet, only I get somewhat more carbs but limit fat intake, and keep proteins to an exact amount. It helps that I get sick every time I cheat. Nothing like a little negative reinforcement to aid in behavior modification.
I exercise about an hour a day and eat a very low calorie diet but still hardly lose any weight, if any. So, yes, my metabolism has slowed way way down.
It makes you sick for the first few days to a week, and after that you feel good again, or even better than usual. I know if I decrease carbs sharply I get a few days of feeling very sleepy and headachy, during which time I might also feel depressed, then after that have more energy than usual accompanied often by a feeling of elation and mild manic feelings.
If I later increase my carbs again, at first I almost feel drunk, say, the first night that I eat more carbs. Then the next day I feel bad and sometimes VERY depressed. I don't know if anyone else has such strong mood effects correlated with carb intake but I thought I'd throw out that warning to those of you who might decide to try Atkins. There's nothing about it in the literature, apparently. You may have to be type 2 diabetic and also cyclothymic to experience this.
It's interesting the parallels between the way I respond to carbs, and the way normal people respond to alcohol. There's that carbo high I get if I increase my carb intake, then the next day there is that hangover in which I might have nausea, dizziness, dry mouth, extreme thirst, and very low energy. Also the shaky hands resemble an alcoholic's DTs. And I also know that diabetes and alcoholism run in the same families. They are both in my extended family. I wonder if I would have been an alcoholic if I drank?
Cutting out carbs is a drastic physiological change. Do be careful. Make sure you are getting enough potassium and so on. And if you start to feel strange in any way (mental effects or whatever) then keep in mind that it is likely to be from eating oddly.
And one more warning: Very low carb diets also increase your risk of developing an eating disorder. You really don't want one of those. The first time I went on a very low carb diet, it almost induced one in me. I had a few symptoms that we figured out how to get rid of by changing my diet, but while it was happening, it was a terrifying feeling of being completely out of control. I thought that couldn't happen to me but hey, it's a disease like anything else, so if your body and your metabolism gets screwed up in the right way then yes it CAN happen to you too.
[ December 31, 2003, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Subway had wraps a few years ago. I remember really liking them and being sad when they went away. I guess I can be glad that the Atkins craze brought them back.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Wraps are great, but aren't they wrapped in pita bread or something like that? I am not sure about Atkins, but I know I can't eat that. At Subway I can get a turkey salad.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
The Atkins diet is bad for you. Honestly.
Cutting carbs is bad for you.
What is good for you is what the health teacher told you 20 years ago - a balanced diet low in (but not completely devoid of) fats and high in dietary fiber. You also need at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, and a variety of them, to assure that you're getting all the proper vitamins you need.
Carbohydrates are what your body needs to work, but the reason everyone thinks you should cut them out of your diet is because all the carbohydrates in the American diet are super-refined and have lost all the natural fiber. Don't eat white flour - eat whole wheat flour. Don't eat white rice - eat brown rice. Don't eat refined sugar - eat natural sugars from fruits and honey.
My Mom has lost 20 pounds in three months and is even healthier now than before and she didn't have to trick her body into burning protein. She's been eating no refined sugars and no white flour. She can eat anything she wants, but she avoids processed foods and eats whole grains.
I promise you, low fat/high fiber diets are much better for you than any Atkins based diet, and much more sustainable.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yep.
Of course, there's no beating the crack diet--a rock for breakfast, a rock for lunch, and a shake for dinner and, hey, you'll lose 200 lbs in no time.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: From what I understand for the first few weeks you eat a very very strict diet to force your body into ketosis (a kind of metabolism that burns fat) This is the part doctors and nutritionists get upset about, and should be done very carefully.
If by "done very carefully", you mean "avoided like poison", you're absolutely right.
The crazy thing about Atkins is that when you tell people that it's a bad diet, the inevitable response is, "no it's not, it works." Sure it works. No one ever said it wouldn't help you lose weight. So would cutting off your legs. While it's true that being overweight is unhealthy, there are some things that are more unhealthy, and Atkins is one of them.
Uncle Orson once said that a good way to get someone to believe a big lie is to place a small truth on top of it, so that people will have to climb over the lie to get to the truth. Atkin's says that you should decrease your intake of simple carbohydrates (sugars) to lose weight. This is true. Simple sugars are high in calories and cause your body to store these excess calories as fat. However, this small truth should not lead you to believe the big lie that the exact opposite of one unhealthy lifestyle isn't just as unhealthy. Annie's right on the nose... eat complex carbs, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, a reasonable amount of protein, watch your total calories, exercise. This is what your body needs. It doesn't need to be crammed full of meat and fat all day long.
Atkins belongs in the same category as fen-phen, anorexia and bulemia. It works, but at what cost? Losing weight is like making money. There's a way that works. It's not easy, but it's the only way. Anyone trying to peddle a shortcut doesn't have your best interests in mind, and you'll find out sooner or later that they did you more harm than good.
[ January 01, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It depends on how your body metabolizes carbohydrates. When you have hypoglycemia, you avoid simple carbs like the plague--this includes potatoes and pasta. I mean, you CAN eat whole wheat pasta, but that's like chewing glue. If I eat a carb heavy meal, an hour later I have the shakes and feel weak. When I saw my doctor about this, she explained that protein and fat are my friends. Peanut butter is my BEST friend.
It's also about your activity level. If you're very active (I work out, run, snowboard, hike, etc), you need carbs for immediate energy as you exercise. You need the protein to "stick" to you and last longer and also to rebuild the tiny muscle tears that exercise causes (that's actually how you build muscle strength).
Because simple carbs are metabolized faster, you're hungry quicker and eat sooner and more often. Other foods, like protein and complex carbohydrates, sustain you for longer.
Losing weight is really just a math game. There's a formula for figuring out what caloric intake you need to maintain your current weight. To lose a pound, you have to have 3500 calories less per week then your maintenance level. To figure out your daily caloric intake to lose a pound a week, you divide 3500 by seven and then subtract that from your maintenance daily caloric intake.
If you only cut calories to lose weight and stay inactive, most likely you will gain it back. Exercise burns extra calories. However, just doing cardio, while great for burning calories and for your cardiovascular health, won't help as MUCH in the long run. Adding a weight training routine will tone up muscles AND will speed up your metabolism. For every pound of muscle you put on, your resting metabolism will burn 50 more calories per day.
So anyway. I lost weight by cutting out many simple carbs and switching to complex carbs (spinach pasta is my compromise if I really, really want some pasta). I eat smaller meals throughout the day rather than three big ones. I eat much more protein, fruits and vegetables. If I'm having something with simple carbs, I make SURE to include enough protein to counterbalance. I lift weight three times a week, do cardio at least five times a week, usually six. I do other athletic activities to give my weight training and cardio a POINT: my hiking and my snowboarding.
Hmm. Apparently I'm my own personal trainer.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
My endocrinologist is on the cutting edge of diabetic research, and research on hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), and also on treatment of obesity. He has degrees in two medical specialties, both endocrinology and internal medicine. He is a researcher and clinician and travels all over giving lectures to doctors on these subjects. He has used low carb diets to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity for a good many years. It is not comparable to amputation at all. There is a lot of data which supports his methods. There is some risk but far far less than that of going untreated.
The distinction between high glycemic index carbs and low glycemic index carbs in their affect on blood sugar and obesity is not nearly so well documented. It's still somewhat up in the air whether it make much difference. Total carbs, though, is certainly very important. Most Americans eat far too many grams of carbs a day. The food pyramid is actually not so great. That is being rethought now by most nutrition specialists. It overemphasizes carbohydrates. Which may well be part of the reason for the twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes among Americans.
Lowering your carb intake is a smart thing to do. Many diets such as the Zone also counsel this. (That's the one that's 40/30/30, meaning 40% of your calories from carbs, 30% from protein, and 30% from fat, which is far higher in fats and lower in carbs than the food pyramid.) The weight watchers diet also limits carbs a great deal. Neither of these are as limiting as Atkins, from what I understand. But the situation with low carb diets is not so dire as some people think.
[ December 31, 2003, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
ak:
I don't think anyone on this thread so far has stated that reducing your total carb intake is comparable to amputation. Yes, many people eat too many carbs. That's what we've all been saying. What I was comparing with amputation is removing all carbs from your diet and eating so much protein that your body is forced into ketosis. It sounds like what your doctor is talking about is a balanced diet that includes a reasonable amount of carbs, but not the regular American level that leads to the intake of twice as many calories as we burn off. That type of "low carb" diet is a far cry from the Atkins definition. I don't think that your doctor is saying anything that we're arguing against here.
On a less serious, more anal grammar-nazi note:
quote: There is a lot of data which supports his methods.
I think you meant that there are a lot of data which support his methods.
Nothing personal, just wanted to show that I was paying attention. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
quote: The crazy thing about Atkins is that when you tell people that it's a bad diet, the inevitable response is, "no it's not, it works." Sure it works. No one ever said it wouldn't help you lose weight. So would cutting off your legs. While it's true that being overweight is unhealthy, there are some things that are more unhealthy, and Atkins is one of them.
This is what I meant about it being compared to amputation. It's not like poison and it's not like amputation. And data in Latin are plural but in English data is more commonly used like rice or snow, I forget the term for that sort of plural which is like stuff, you know? (You have lots of stuff or a little stuff but not one stuff or many stuffs.) And thanks for paying attention.
[ January 01, 2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I have a close friend of mine who is quite healthy and has been on the Atkins diet for a year.
Everybody who is against the Atkins diet in this thread has done little more than way what they think works for them, and then say Atkins is bad for you. HOW is it bad for you? Can you back it up with a reputable and factual source (anybody can find a link that says what they want)?
If it's so bad for you, then why is it becoming one of the fastest growing markets in the grocery business? Why are people not dying and they are successful? Can you show me a person that this diet has had an adverse effect on and prove that it was caused by the Atkins diet?
I'm willing to bet that nobody can.
[ January 01, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Ketosis is one of the body's last-ditch emergency responses; deliberately inducing ketosis can lead to muscle breakdown, nausea, dehydration, headaches, light-headedness, irritability, bad breath, and kidney problems. In pregnancy, ketosis may cause fetal abnormality or death. It can also be fatal in individuals with diabetes! While supporters of the Atkins diet concentrate so much on the fat burning capability of ketosis they neglect to mention that over the long term protein, and thus muscle, is also burned!
Over an extended period of time, the Atkins diet can give rise to other health risks, as well. By restricting carbohydrates, all four diets inevitably lead to a lack of fiber, which can cause constipation and other gastrointestinal difficulties. In addition, the high amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat they prescribe increase the risk of heart disease and, possibly, some cancers. There is recent evidence that a diet featuring excessive protein may leach calcium from the bones (giving rise to osteoporosis).
quote: One pays a substantial price from such a diet which generates chronic ketosis. Besides the increased cancer risk, the kidneys are placed under increased stress and will age more rapidly. It can take many, many years for such damage to be detected by blood tests and by the time it is detected, irreversible damage might have already occurred. The blood tests that monitor kidney function do not begin to increase until more than 80% of the kidneys have been destroyed.
Even in my private medical practice, I have already seen numerous diabetic patients who have permanently damaged their kidneys as a result of attempting weight loss and diabetic control with high-protein diets. One diabetic patient, John Lyle, lost weight after being a patient at The Atkins' Center, and his diabetes did improve, but his creatinine, a marker of kidney function went from 1.2 pre-Atkin's to 2.3 when he stopped one year later. This represents a loss of 95% of his kidney function in one year while on the Atkins' diet.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
The Atkins diet has been linked to kidney and heart health risks. The risks are not immediate, they're long-term.
quote:"Is the Atkins diet safe in respect to health?" Forster H. translated from German. Abstract
The "Atkins dietary revolution" is a ketogenic diet consisting almost exclusively of food from animal origin. A similar diet was introduced as the "Banting diet" more than a century ago by the English physician Harvey. This carbohydrate-free diet is high in fat, cholesterol and purines. The measurable ketosis is a precondition for the effect of this kind of diet. However, the predictable hyperlipacidemia and ketosis are recognized health risks. Additionally, hypercholesterolemia is to be expected in a greater part of the adherents to such a diet. Even children under ketogenic diet develop hypercholesterolemia within a short time. A similar high-fat diet, known as the Sippy diet for ulcer therapy, was found earlier to cause an increased incidence in coronary heart disease. On the basis of the known facts the Atkins diet seems to be potentially hazardous to health, unless a controlled study is performed. However, considering the risks it seems very problematic to perform such a study.
The National Kidney Research Fund in the UK agrees:
quote:The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in America are backing a recent report that appeared to confirm that the Atkins Diet could lead to kidney damage. Dr Amy Joy Lanou, their nutrition director, said:‘A Harvard study published earlier this year in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that high-protein diets may cause permanent loss of kidney function in anyone with reduced kidney function.’
Specifically, the Harvard researchers found that a high-protein diet – particularly one high in meat – contributed to kidney deterioration in those women who already had a mild kidney problem. When protein is broken down into amino acids, urea and nitrogen are produced, which have to be excreted by the kidneys. The more protein you eat, the more waste products are produced and the harder the kidney has to work. This can put an intolerable strain on an already weakened kidney.
Besides these comments, I don't support the Atkins diet because all the doctors at my medical school have had nothing good to say about the Atkins diet. Especially the kidney doctors.
Atkins probably won't harm you if you're on it for a few months, and you're already a reasonably healthy individual. But I certainly wouldn't suggest it as a lifestyle change.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Of course it's bad for you LONG term, but for a quick weight loss, it won't hurt you.
If you were on it for years upon years, I could understand, but say if somebody wanted to lose 10 pounds of fat in one month and used Atkins, it would not hurt them. I'm not saying that it's a good way to eat forever, but it is successful, and it's not harmful for fat burning short diets.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Losing weight too rapidly on ANY diet can be very harmful. The rapid release of fat-stored toxins can have some nasty side effects.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Yes, but that doesn't mean that Atkins causes that. That doesn't make Atkins any worse than any other short-term fat-burning diet.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
The problem is, I've had nutritionists tell me that the success rate of 'quick diets' is roughly 5-10%. Everyone else gains that weight back fairly soon.
The most effective diet is the kind of diet that consists of a healthy food lifestyle. Sustainable 'diets' do a lot better in the long run. And isn't that what matters?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* That's not what all the doctors I've discussed it with say.
And saying it's not worse than OTHER unhealthy diets doesn't seem like a great recommendation.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
What about the person that is very overweight, and wants to lose the weight quickly and keep it off?
quote: The most effective diet is the kind of diet that consists of a healthy food lifestyle.
Agreed. Why can't you do Atkins or other quick fat-burning diets and then switch to a diet that "consists of a health food lifestyle?"
I'm not pro-Atkins, and I'm not even on the diet, but I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be.
[ January 01, 2004, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Among other reasons, because Atkins lowers the metabolism -- so continued weight loss will be that much harder.
And whether you believe it or not, even short term, it can do serious, permanent damage.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
How?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Primarily by damaging the kidneys and muscles, and increasing cancer risks.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Also, lots of people just don't lose weight on those long term slow type diets. It's easy to say that works but the truth is that most people don't even lose the weight to begin with on that type, much less keep it off. NO diet is successful longterm, unfortunately.
The only thing that seems to work longterm is to forever uncouple your eating from any feeling of hunger or satiety, and to basically be on a diet for the rest of your life, counting every bite and treating food as though it were medicine or something to be taken in exact dosages at predetermined times. Since that is very difficult to do, only a small percentage of people manage it.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
The dangers of untreated type 2 diabetes are ulcers on the extremities, leading to amputations, neuropathy leading to skin numbness, heart disease leading to congestive heart failure, kidney damage leading to kidney failure, retinopathy leading to blindness, and less well documented because those other things usually kill people first, it also damages every organ in your body including your brain, liver, lungs, and your whole cardiovascular system, as well as having a bad effect on the intestines and entire digestive system. Staying very lean decreases your risk of type 2 diabetes, and losing weight can reverse it. So the trade offs are great. It is sometimes a very good choice to accept the risks of low carb diets.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Hey. I just went to sleep, and look what I woke up to. There sure are some strong feelings on this argument, and mine are no exception.
ak, I don't mean to sound thick, but does your doctor actually say that the Atkins diet is healthy, or does he, as it appeared by your post, support a more reasonable mechanism of reducing total carb intake? Yes, I did compare the Atkins diet to amputation, and I stick by my comparison. But I don't think this is what your doctor was talking about, so it appears we're debating different things. Let me say again, there is nothing at all wrong with limiting your caloric intake by mechanism of cutting excess carbohydrates (and fats) out of your diet, and switching to whole grains over refined simple carbs. This is an entirely different strategy than Atkins is talking about, and an entirely different definition of "low-carb diet". People that think that fat is the only enemy, and that they can eat an unlimited amount of candy so long as it's "low-fat" are just as goofy as the Atkins people, but on the other side of the spectrum. I think your doctor is discouraging this idea, but I wouldn't use that as an endorsement of the opposite extreme.
Further, just a couple more thoughts to back up my Atkins-hating buddies:
quote: Pandemic obesity and the contagion of nutritional nonsense.
Katz DL.
Yale Prevention Research Center, 130 Division St., Derby, CT 06418, USA. katzdl@pol.net
The United States is the epicenter of an obesity pandemic. As more countries acculturate to a Western lifestyle, rates of obesity and its sequelae are rising steadily in both adults and children. In response, a variety of weight-loss diets emphasizing alternative distributions of macronutrient classes have been promoted with considerable success. Among the most popular is the so-called "Atkins Diet," in which carbohydrate restriction is touted as the key to weight loss. Despite claims, however, evidence that weight loss is enhanced by means other than caloric restriction is lacking. Also lacking is evidence that fad diets produce sustainable weight loss. Most important, fad diets generally ignore or refute what is known about fundamental associations between dietary pattern and human health. Cancer, cholera, and AIDS induce rapid weight loss, highlighting the potential incompatibility of weight loss by any means with health. Available data suggest that long-term weight loss is most consistently achieved by adherence to a fat-restricted diet abundant in grains, vegetables, and fruit, along with regular physical activity, a lifestyle notably conducive to the promotion of overall health. Fad diets, potential harms of which are well characterized, should be presumed "guilty" of incompatibility with human health until or unless proved otherwise; the burden of proof should reside with proponents. In the interim, the clinical and public health communities should work to empower individuals with knowledge needed to reconcile weight control with health promotion; support policies that mitigate obesogenic environmental conditions; and offer unified resistance to the contagion of dietary propaganda.
Public Health Rev. 2003;31(1):33-44.
quote: Effects of a carbohydrate-restricted diet on affective responses to acute exercise among physically active participants.
Butki BD, Baumstark J, Driver S.
Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, 62026-1126, USA.
Currently, the carbohydrate-restricted diet is very popular. Atkins' book, Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution, has sold millions in its more than 25 years of existence. His book promotes the carbohydrate-restricted diet, which focuses on the consumption of proteins and fats as primary calorie and energy sources, while severely restricting carbohydrates. However, when carbohydrates are restricted from the diet, the body's primary energy source is reduced considerably. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the psychological responses to exercise of individuals when on a carbohydrate restrictive diet and when on a noncarbohydrate restrictive diet. For this study, 17 participants practiced a noncarbohydrate-restricted diet for three weeks and the carbohydrate-restricted diet for three weeks, while maintaining previous exercise habits. After each exercise session, the participants completed the Physical Activity Affect Scale, which measures Positive Affect, Negative Affect, Tranquility, and Fatigue. Simple one-way analyses of variance indicated significant treatment differences (ps<.05) relative to Negative Affect, Positive Affect, and Fatigue. The results of the study indicate as predicted, that, when a person restricts carbohydrates from the diet, he will experience more fatigue, more negative affect, and less positive affect in response to exercise than those individuals who are not restricting carbohydrates.
-Percept Mot Skills. 2003 Apr;96 2 :607-15.
quote: High-protein, high-fat diets induce metabolic ketosis and are initially attractive because they may induce quick weight loss. This initial weight loss, however, may be attributed in part to the diuretic effect from low carbohydrate intake and its effects on sodium and water loss, glycogen depletion, and ketosis. As the diet is sustained, loss of appetite associated with ketosis leads to lower total caloric intake.33 High-protein diets of 30% kilocalories from protein also can promote negative energy balance due to significant restriction in the type and amount of foods eaten. The structured eating plan, strict eating schedules, and limited tolerance for high-protein foods reduce overall flexibility but offer initial appeal. These characteristics may help limit caloric intake and may account for weight loss. However, neither the efficacy of these diets compared with higher carbohydrate diets in promoting weight loss nor the safety of these diets has been documented in long-term studies.
The amount of protein recommended in high-protein diet regimens exceeds established requirements19 and may impose significant health risks. First, animal protein (rather than plant-based proteins that also contain carbohydrates) is generally advocated in these diets. A diet rich in animal protein, saturated fat, and cholesterol raises low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, an effect that is compounded when high-carbohydrate, high-fiber plant foods that help lower cholesterol are limited or eliminated.16,34–37 Furthermore, a high-carbohydrate diet that includes fruit, vegetables, nonfat dairy products, and whole grains has been shown to lower blood pressure,38 so limitation of these foods may raise blood pressure via associated reductions in potassium, calcium, and magnesium coupled with increased sodium intake. High-protein foods such as meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, seeds, and nuts are high in purines. Purines are broken down into uric acid, so excess consumption of these foods increases uric acid levels and may cause gout in susceptible individuals.39 A surplus of protein in the system also increases urinary calcium loss, which may facilitate osteoporosis.40 In addition, elimination or severe restriction of fruit, vegetables, beans, and whole grains from the diet may increase cancer risk.41 A very-high-protein diet is especially risky for patients with diabetes, because it can speed the progression, even for short lengths of time, of diabetic renal disease.42–44 Finally, because food choices may be severely restricted on high-protein diets, healthful foods such as low-fat milk products, cereals, grains, fruits, and vegetables (which are higher in carbohydrates and contain essential nutrients) are also generally restricted or eliminated.28–32 This can lead to deficiencies in essential vitamins, minerals, and fiber over the long term; these deficiencies can have adverse health effects if they are allowed to persist. Furthermore, when carbohydrates are severely restricted with high-protein diets, fatigue often occurs when muscle glycogen is depleted during bouts of exercise.45 Some popular high-protein/low-carbohydrate diets limit carbohydrates to 10 to 20 g/d,6 which is one fifth of the minimum 100 g/d that is necessary to prevent loss of lean muscle tissue.
...A popular premise of high-protein diets is that excess carbohydrate results in elevated insulin levels, which in turn promotes storage of body fat and other metabolic consequences. To induce weight loss, the high ratio of protein and fat to carbohydrate purportedly promotes metabolic changes that reduce serum insulin levels. However, in fact, protein intake also stimulates insulin secretion.46 Insulin resistance or hyperinsulinemia is complex and regulated by a number of interacting factors. It occurs as a result of obesity or excess fat storage and lack of physical activity, and it can be reduced significantly by caloric restriction, weight loss, and exercise.47–50 Changes in calorie balance over wide ranges of fat intake apparently do not influence insulin action in humans.51
There are very few long-term studies of high-protein diets. One randomized dietary intervention study52 in 65 healthy overweight men and women that compared 2 ad lib diets varying in protein content (12% versus 25% of kilocalories from protein) demonstrated larger weight losses with the higher-protein diet (8.9 kg) versus the lower-protein diet (5.1 kg) over 6 months. However, another study53 showed similar weight losses with diets of varying protein and fat composition, which indicates that total energy intake is the most important determinant for weight loss. The short-term effects of high-protein diets have been appraised mainly in terms of increased weight loss and its associated benefits. Deleterious effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors were demonstrated in a study37 of 24 obese individuals who followed the Atkins diet for 3 months, in whom caloric intake declined but LDL cholesterol levels rose despite the weight loss. Most of the weight loss occurred in the first few weeks, which suggests the combined effects of fluid loss and potential anorectic effects of induced ketosis.
A recent review of the literature regarding the effects of low-carbohydrate (high-protein) diets reported from 1956 to 2000 concluded from 20 published studies that there is a pattern of weight loss that ranges from 2.8 to 12.0 kg within varying time frames and number and type of subjects included.6,7 However, when carbohydrate is restricted, subjects generally reduce their overall intake of calories, and this calorie deficit is related to the weight loss. These studies raised important questions regarding the long-term effects of these diets on weight maintenance and overall health. Long-term studies are needed to determine the overall safety and efficacy of high-protein diets. In particular, benefits and potential risks beyond the initial weight loss observed should be addressed.
...Scientific studies do not demonstrate that high-protein diets without concomitant decreases in caloric intake result in sustained weight loss or improved health. Most Americans consume more protein than their bodies need. Extra protein is not used efficiently by the body and may impose a metabolic burden on the kidneys and liver. High-protein diets may also be associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease due to intakes of saturated fat, cholesterol, and other associated dietary factors. When diets high in protein are severely limited in carbohydrates, food choices become restrictive, and overall nutrient adequacy and long-term palatability are also of concern. Successful weight loss occurs most frequently when a nutritionally adequate diet that allows for caloric deficits (500 kcal/d for each 1 lb lost per week) is tailored according to individual food preferences. A minimum of 1200 kcal/d for women and 1500 kcal/d for men should be provided. Total energy deficit has the greatest overall impact on weight reduction, especially when coupled with increased physical activity and behavior modification to maintain negative energy balance. Over the long term, diet composition should be consistent with a balanced eating plan that supports weight maintenance and lowers chronic disease risk.
There's a lot more information out there, but I can't find any better quotes without going to the health science library and pulling some periodicals, so these will have to do for now.
[ January 01, 2004, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:ak wrote: The only thing that seems to work longterm is to forever uncouple your eating from any feeling of hunger or satiety, and to basically be on a diet for the rest of your life, counting every bite and treating food as though it were medicine or something to be taken in exact dosages at predetermined times.
I disagree. Maybe you were just generalizing and didn't mean to say that the "only thing that seems to work" is to diet. A lot of people who are successful with long term weight loss still get hungry and can still sate their appetite.
quote:Under Diet Traps:I have to diet to lose weight. One diet after another isn't the answer. A consistent plan for a healthier lifestyle lays the groundwork for lasting weight loss.
The key to keeping the weight off is creating better habits for yourself, not monitoring everything you eat for the rest of your life. If you create a lifestyle where you exercise vigorously three times a week, choose to get more little bits of exercise everyday(taking the stairs instead of the elevator, running around with the dog in the yard) and eat reasonably, then it shouldn't be as difficult to keep the weight off. Most people who have kept weight off over long periods have just been on self created low fat, high carb diets(no protein shakes, Weight Watchers, grape fruit diets, etc.) and changed their exercise regimen. They still splurge every once in a while with junk food. The key is just moderation in food, not starvation. You're prolly happier with a moderate diet than one where you watch every calorie, and the happiness factor makes it more likely that you'll follow the diet.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Just a couple more abstracts:
quote: Low-carbohydrate diets: what are the potential short- and long-term health implications?
Bilsborough SA, Crowe TC.
School of Health Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood Highway, Burwood, Australia 3125. tcrowe@deakin.edu.au
Low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss are receiving a lot of attention of late. Reasons for this interest include a plethora of low-carbohydrate diet books, the over-sensationalism of these diets in the media and by celebrities, and the promotion of these diets in fitness centres and health clubs. The re-emergence of low-carbohydrate diets into the spotlight has lead many people in the general public to question whether carbohydrates are inherently 'bad' and should be limited in the diet. Although low-carbohydrate diets were popular in the 1970s they have resurged again yet little scientific fact into the true nature of how these diets work or, more importantly, any potential for serious long-term health risks in adopting this dieting practice appear to have reached the mainstream literature. Evidence abounds that low-carbohydrate diets present no significant advantage over more traditional energy-restricted, nutritionally balanced diets both in terms of weight loss and weight maintenance. Studies examining the efficacy of using low-carbohydrate diets for long-term weight loss are few in number, however few positive benefits exist to promote the adoption of carbohydrate restriction as a realistic, and more importantly, safe means of dieting. While short-term carbohydrate restriction over a period of a week can result in a significant loss of weight (albeit mostly from water and glycogen stores), of serious concern is what potential exists for the following of this type of eating plan for longer periods of months to years. Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet. The need to further explore and communicate the untoward side-effects of low-carbohydrate diets should be an important public health message from nutrition professionals.
-Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2003;12(4):396-404.
quote: Low carbohydrate diets Low carbohydrate diets have a long history. The Greek Olympians are said to have eaten high meat, low vegetable diets to improve athletic performance.7 The modern popularity of low carbohydrate diets has been influenced by the seeming "failure" of low fat diets because of a misunderstanding that energy intake is not important and that you can eat as much low fat food as you like and still lose weight.12 Furthermore, low carbohydrate diets appear to work, as they produce rapid weight loss in the first week.7
Because the body's demand for glucose is constant, body glycogen stores are mobilised in the early phases of a low carbohydrate diet, and for each gram of glycogen lost two to four grams of intracellular water are lost (intracellular water maintains isotonicity). Consequently, there is greater water and hence weight loss in the early days of this type of diet. Water equilibrium is re-established in the second and subsequent weeks, so that, in the longer term, weight loss simply reflects the energy deficit. Energy-nitrogen balance studies have demonstrated that the greater weight loss on a low carbohydrate, high fat diet is accounted for by losses in body water.7
If carbohydrate restriction is severe (for example, less than 60 g), ketosis can result, which decreases appetite and causes nausea, but can also cause hyperuricaemia as ketones compete with uric acid for renal tubular excretion.7
Popular low carbohydrate, high protein diets include the Zone Diet,14 the Carbohydrate Addict's Diet,15 and the Sugar Busters! diet.16 A popular low carbohydrate, high fat diet that has been around since the 1970s is the Dr Atkins diet.17
Low carbohydrate, high protein diets As with other low carbohydrate diets, high protein diets result in initially rapid weight loss. If continued, they produce weight loss because they are also low kilojoule diets.
There is also evidence that higher-protein diets are more satiating. People feel fuller and eat less after a meal with a high protein content (31%-54% energy).18-20 A low fat, higher-protein diet (25% of energy) has also been found to produce a significantly reduced energy intake and greater weight and fat loss over six months compared with a low fat diet with 12% energy from protein.21 However, energy restriction is responsible for the weight loss.
An additional problem of high protein diets is the extra solute load placed on the kidneys owing to greater production of nitrogen waste products, particularly in situations of high water loss from perspiration or inadequate fluid intake contributing to dehydration.7 In the long term, very high protein diets may increase the risk of osteoporosis in people with inadequate calcium intake by increasing calcium excretion.7,22
Low carbohydrate, high fat diets Popular for many years, the Dr Atkins diet17 allows protein-rich foods such as meats, fish, chicken and eggs, but also encourages fatty foods like butter, cream, fats, oils and salad dressings in large amounts. The key principle of the diet is to develop ketosis, which is seen as a dieting advantage because loss of ketones in the urine is regarded as wasting "usable" energy. The early stage of the diet restricts carbohydrate to no more than 20 g per day to achieve this. However, the actual energy value of urinary ketone losses is insignificant compared with the energy deficit of around 30 MJ required to lose one kilogram of fat. The daily loss of energy from ketones rarely exceeds 2%-3% of the total energy requirement.23 After ketosis is established, small amounts of carbohydrate (up to 60 g per day) are allowed back into the diet, provided urinary ketone losses are maintained.
Common consequences of following this type of diet include dehydration, diarrhoea, weakness, headaches, dizziness and bad breath. Over the longer term, such a diet can increase the risk of atherosclerosis — one study has shown that this diet increases serum cholesterol levels and may increase the risk of coronary heart disease by more than 50% with long term use.2
This type of diet also does not include sufficient fruits and vegetables for good health and promotes the misconception that energy intake is not important.
-Med J Aust. 2001 Dec 3-17;175(11-12):637-40. link
quote: The average American diet, which is high in protein and low in fruits and vegetables, generates a large amount of acid, mainly as sulfates and phosphates. The kidneys respond to this dietary acid challenge with net acid excretion, as well as ammonium and titratable acid excretion. Concurrently, the skeleton supplies buffer by active resorption of bone. Indeed, calciuria is directly related to net acid excretion. Different food proteins differ greatly in their potential acid load, and therefore in their acidogenic effect. A diet high in acid-ash proteins causes excessive calcium loss because of its acidogenic content. The addition of exogenous buffers, as chemical salts or as fruits and vegetables, to a high protein diet results in a less acid urine, a reduction in net acid excretion, reduced ammonium and titratable acid excretion, and decreased calciuria. Bone resorption may be halted, and bone accretion may actually occur. Alkali buffers, whether chemical salts or dietary fruits and vegetables high in potassium, reverse acid-induced obligatory urinary calcium loss. We conclude that excessive dietary protein from foods with high potential renal acid load adversely affects bone, unless buffered by the consumption of alkali-rich foods or supplements.
-The Journal of Nutrition Vol. 128 No. 6 June 1998, pp. 1051-1053
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: You're prolly happier with a moderate diet than one where you watch every calorie, and the happiness factor makes it more likely that you'll follow the diet.
JNSB, I don't have a problem with you, but the fact that you used "prolly" irritates me to no end. Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Speed, I think you have a point with the complex carbos as opposed to the refined ones. A few years before Atkins, my mom started the Protien Power diet. It's basically the same thing; she restricted her carbs to about thirty a day. PP encouraged fiber intake because it passes right through you and makes you feel fuller.
Also my brother-in-law lost 98 pounds on Atkins. He also eats a lot of fiber.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: Of course it's bad for you LONG term, but for a quick weight loss, it won't hurt you.
If you were on it for years upon years, I could understand, but say if somebody wanted to lose 10 pounds of fat in one month and used Atkins, it would not hurt them. I'm not saying that it's a good way to eat forever, but it is successful, and it's not harmful for fat burning short diets.
quote: What about the person that is very overweight, and wants to lose the weight quickly and keep it off?
Just a quick note on statements like this. Javert Hugo, Suneun and Rivka have alluded to this, but there is a national weight control registry that monitors long-term success rates of weight loss strategies. This is from one of their publications:
quote: Myth: Fad diets work for permanent weight loss.
Fact: Fad diets are not the best ways to lose weight and keep it off. These eating plans often promise to help you lose a lot of weight quickly, or tell you to cut certain foods out of your diet to lose weight. Although you may lose weight at first while on these kinds of diets, they can be unhealthy because they often keep you from getting all the nutrients that your body needs. Fad diets may seriously limit or forbid certain types of food, so most people quickly get tired of them and regain the lost weight.
Research suggests that losing 1/2 to 2 pounds a week by eating better and exercising more is the best way to lose weight and keep it off. By improving your eating and exercise habits, you will develop a healthier lifestyle and control your weight. You will also reduce your chances of developing heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. (For more information about how to develop and maintain a healthy lifestyle, read Weight Loss for Life, listed in the "Additional Reading" section at the end of this fact sheet.)
Based upon available emperical evidence, the kind of weight loss plans that work gradually are the kind far more likely to work permanently. If you see a diet that will cause you to lose weight at a rate more rapidly than 2 pounds a week, that weight that you lose is almost certain to come back, often with reinforcements.
Yes, Atkins is very effective short-term. Its long-term efficacy and overall safety are a completely different matter. If you absolutely must lose 10 pounds in a week, and your reason for doing so is so compelling that it outweighs (no pun intended) your need to be thin or healthy ever again in the future, try Atkins. Otherwise, it's probably not such a good idea.
(edit to add link and another relevant quote from the fact sheet:)
quote: Myth: High-protein/low-carbohydrate diets are a healthy way to lose weight.
Fact: A high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet provides most of your calories each day from protein foods (like meat, eggs, and cheese) and few calories from carbohydrate foods (like breads, pasta, potatoes, fruits, and vegetables). People often get bored with these diets because they crave the plant-based foods they are not allowed to have or can have only in very small amounts. These diets often lack key nutrients found in carbohydrate foods.
Many of these diets allow a lot of food high in fat, like bacon and cheese. High-fat diets can raise blood cholesterol levels, which increases a person's risk for heart disease and certain cancers.
High-protein/low-carbohydrate diets may cause rapid weight loss--but most of it is water weight and lean muscle mass--not fat. You lose water because your kidneys try to get rid of the excess waste products of protein and fat, called ketones, that your body makes.
This is not a healthy way to lose weight! It overworks your kidneys, and can cause dehydration, headaches, and bad breath. It can also make you feel nauseous, tired, weak, and dizzy. A buildup of ketones in your blood (called ketosis) can cause your body to produce high levels of uric acid, which is a risk factor for gout (a painful swelling of the joints) and kidney stones. Ketosis can be very risky for pregnant women and people with diabetes.
By following a reduced-calorie diet that is well-balanced between carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, you will still lose weight--without hurting your body. You will also be more likely to keep the weight off.
[ January 01, 2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Nick,
I will prolly do it a lot more, too. Frisco, Olivet, Black Mage, Storm Saxon, pooka, unohoo, Leonide, Shira (wow, she only has 14 posts), ayame001 (9 posts), Maethoriell, Users101, and others (I'm getting bored now so I stopped looking for more people who use "prolly") also use the word.
If you've got a problem with me using the word, I say *beckons in Matrix/Neo fashion* brrrrrrrrring it!
[ January 01, 2004, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
if any of you are interested in losing weight/having a healthier lifestyle, then I suggest talking to a nutritionist. But here are some things they've told me at medical school. I don't mean that you have to do every single one. But if you analyze your eating habits, you can choose the changes you're willing to make and maintain.
1. Are you eating at restaurants more than once a week? Consider cutting that out. Just ordering a salad simply doesn't work. The dressing can be chock full of fat (a serving of Ranch dressing has 14 grams of fat), they pile on eggs/crutons/bacon, and the serving size is huge.
2. Drink coffee every day? Do you use heavy cream? Each tablespoon has 5 grams of fat (3.5 sat), and I bet they put in several tablespoons. Switch to 2% milk or skim. Get a size smaller coffee than you normally do.
3. Avoid certain pre-processed foods. Bakery items like muffins are often two or three servings, yet people eat them all at once. Many frozen dinners are full of salt and fat. Check labels carefully when you buy premade meals.
4. What kind of cooking oil do you use? Olive and canola oil are the healthiest oils to cook with. They both contain large amounts of unsaturated fats, which increase good cholesterols.
5. Junk Food. Buy in moderation. I've switched to a low-fat, no-trans-fats chip from Lay's that's actually reasonably tasty. Don't get into a habit of buying a super-large bag of Dorito's every week.
6. Soda. I love soda. If you don't mind, you could switch to diet. But I love my soda. =)
7. Exercise! Need I say more? This one's hard. Really hard. But figure out the things you like doing (running, stationary bike, stairs, weight room, tennis, walking) and do it.
There are bound to be other things. And there are certainly ones you would never want to do (like me and my soda. Mmm, soda). The important thing is tailoring it to meet your lifestyle, and make you happy.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
One quick thought to back up Suneun:
Olive oil is wonderful. I had never used it in my life, but four years ago I started pharmacy school and married someone from the Mediterranean, where olive oil is plentiful, so I started trying to use it more. Gradually it has become more prominent in my cooking, and after a few years I find that I never need to use vegetable oil for anything now. Seriously. Even cakes and brownies. You'd think that the olive taste would ruin pastries, but it doesn't. I've never tried olive oil in anything that made me wish I'd used vegetable oil. It's a bit more expensive, but it's far healthier and it tastes great. I highly recommend it.
[ January 01, 2004, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Oh yeah, olive and canola oils aren't _the_ only oils, but they're the easiest to use/reasonably tasty/etc.
I know some people who put flax seed oil on their toast/salad. That's good for you, too. But not cooked flax seed oil, I believe.
Addendum: Eat more fish.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Fish? *absolutely LOVES sushi* Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I will prolly do it a lot more, too. Frisco, Olivet, Black Mage, Storm Saxon, pooka, unohoo, Leonide, Shira (wow, she only has 14 posts), ayame001 (9 posts), Maethoriell, Users101, and others (I'm getting bored now so I stopped looking for more people who use "prolly") also use the word.
So what? It bugs me when ANYBODY uses it. Just because other people do it, it doesn't make more correct or any less annoying.
[ January 01, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Sunflower oil is also fun.
I once commented that I'd want to start Atkins and I got scolded by many a health care professional. For someone who is as active as I am, cutting out all carbs could do some serious damage, to me AND my athletic endeavors. And a non-athletic Mack is a sad Mack indeed.
Another thing: if you're losing more than two pounds per week, that isn't all fat you're losing. You're also losing muscle. And like I said before, that's what can SLOW DOWN your metabolism. Adding muscle speeds it up...taking it away slows it down.
I wonder, too, what makes the exercising bit the HARDEST to do in any weight loss plan? Don't people have FUN in sports? When you do conditioning like weight lifting (this includes nautilus circuits and/or freeweights) and keep up with at least 30 minutes of cardio per day (bike, elliptical, running, stairclimber, rowing), your body does respond by getting less fatigued in normal activities and performs much better all around. If you participate in any sort of hobby sport (like my hiking and snowboarding and racquetball, for instance) conditioning vastly improves both performance AND enjoyment. Why the enjoyment? You aren't tired and wiped out after an hour...you can keep going.
The summer and winter after I graduated from college, I never would've been able to learn to snowboard so quickly. A half hour would've wiped me out, my muscles wouldn't have responded to training quickly, and my muscles wouldn't have been developed enough endurance and fast-twitch yet.
I never want to return to the body I had in college. This one is capable of so much that I want to do--and I can not only keep up with my clients (kids, for those of you who don't know)--but when they take off and run across a field, through the woods and near some train tracks, I can catch up and not even be out of breath.
The little exercise things during the day? I suppose I don't follow them because my exercise IS a part of my regular day.
But I really want to know, WHY is the EXERCISE part the hardest? When I started, I found that giving up soda and pasta was the HARDEST by a long shot.
But there's always cheeseburgers. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Had a "Double-Double" at In-N-Out Burger for dinner last night. *is happy*
I'm with you on the metabolism bit you said mack. I lift weights some regularly, and I started to go rock climbing pretty regularly recently. It's amazing how much weight I have lost. I went from about 200 pounds with a 34" waist to weighing 180 pounds with a 32" waist. Like I said, I'm not an Atkins person, I just don't think it will kill you. I had no idea it was as harmful in the long run though.
[ January 01, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yeah, I went from weighing 176 lbs and a tight size 14 to I THINK around 140 (I refuse to get on a scale and the nurses and dietician SWEAR I weight about 130) and wear 10s but they all have serious saggy bum issues (so I'm probably an 8).
Eight was my target size!
I can't exactly target weight because of my musculature and bone structure. Okay, so I used to think that was crap. But it got pointed out to me that you can feel my hipbones and there's basically no fat between that and my skin. That the rest of my body isn't jiggly, but toned and firm.
Cept my tummy. I mean, it's flat, but it isn't what I want for tone. It isn't as firm as I'd like. The problem is, whenever I do any ab exercises, weird stuff happens with my GI system.
I'm actually getting my body fat ratio taken next week. When you're active and muscular, BMI is a poor measure of health. Often, folks who are in top condition are given "overweight" status using BMI. That, and I refuse to get on a scale. It's depressing.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Sorry that your GI system gives you crap when you work out your abdomen. That would really tick me off.
I understand what you mean with the "targe size". What ticks me off to no end is when my girlfriend says she wants to be a size zero. They REALLY bugs me. I mean, when you can see the hip bones gauntly protruding, it makes me want to puke. When women look like that, they lose the womanly shape that I think is attractive.
Mack, what do you do for exercise?
[ January 01, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Ugh. By no means do I want to be a stick. Eight is my target size because I'm just a bit taller than my mother and we have the same bone structure and HER healthiest size was an 8. I'm also a muscle-lover. I love toned, muscular bodies. I don't know WHY. With women at the gym, I'm asking, "Okay, how'd you get that kind of tone on your upper arm?"
With guys..okay, I almost drool.
For weight training, I do a three day split. First day is biceps, chest and shoulders. Usually bench press, chest press, flye, shoulder press, alternating bicep curl, preacher curl, gravitron. Right now I'm under doctor's orders not to do any shoulder targeting weight exercises, or any other exercise that gives my shoulder joint pain--so that leaves out the shoulder stuff, bench press and gravitron.
Legs is pretty standard. Straight through the regular nautilus circuit and then adding a calf lift at the end.
Back and triceps use the triceps press, gravitron , a couple nautilus machines I can't remember the names of (I just look at what muscles it targets) and lat pulldown.
Each of the weights I do 12 slow reps for 3/4 sets with 15 second rests between each set. On weight training days I do 30 minutes of cardio on the elliptical, then do 10 minutes of racquetball on my own for pylometrics (keeping the fast twitch reactions of my muscles).
On the day between each weight training day I do an easy 3 mile run, depending on what I did on the weekend.
On the weekends I do my power hiking (the 10 mile hikes in 4.5 hours and 2000 ft or so of elevation gain), snowboarding, or if I can't do those, a long run.
If I did hiking or snowboarding both Saturday and Sunday, I use the two days between weight training as rest days. If I just did one day on the weekend, then I'll do the runs during the week.
And I go crazy if I can't be active.
I'm also REALLY frustrated with the shoulder thing. Even when I'm just doing biceps, back, some chest and tris, the shoulder joints get tweaked. Snowboarding also tweaks them. But I'm not stopping everything, dammit!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Speed, you are making the common mistake of thinking, "if people would just do X (implied: like me) they'd all be fine". However, the epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes in our society seems to argue against that. It's a lot more difficult and complicated a problem than that, in fact, and low carb diets, including very low carb diets, are sometimes a smart option, sometimes the best option medical science has for us.
[ January 01, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Not true. Diabetes is a serious problem, but Atkins will only make it worse. Read some of the studies posted. Show me your evidence to the contrary.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I will ask Joey for specific studies to cite next time I go to him. He has spent decades studying this and is both brilliant and up to date on all that is going on in the field.
It also worked for me. I first had high blood sugar in my early 30s, then went on a very low carb diet under Joey's care and delayed the onset for 10 more years. Then when it came back in my early 40s I did a modified low carb diet (more carbs than Atkins, I think) and reversed it again. Now my blood sugar is back in normal range, my last hemoglobin A1C was 5.8! And I am off insulin and off all diabetic drugs (that treat blood sugar. I still take Enalapril for delaying long term cardiovascular damage.)
There's no easy answer. If there was, this problem would not be the widespread epidemic it has become. Low carb diets are one very powerful tool that, when applied judiciously, can be quite effective. There are risks but sometimes they are more than outweighed by the benefits.
[ January 01, 2004, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Yeah, ask him. But before you do, read some of the studies that have been posted here already. Tell me what you think. I don't want to get into the "my doctor is smarter than your doctor" game. I'm a health care professional. I may not be as brilliant as your friend, but I know plenty of people who are. I've met and talked with a plethora of them, and I've never met one who would support the Atkins diet, especially for a diabetic. So you'll forgive me if I'm still skeptical.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
The key to anything is moderation! Cutting out the whites (flour, sugar, rice) and replacing them with whole grains is a good start. But you can go overboard on those too. For a diabetic eating less carbs is good. I don't think no carbs is good for anyone. I know my dh has lost weight by cutting out the sugary soda, cutting back on his carb consumption (less potatos for one) and increasing his vegies. There is a book called Eating Smart the Low-Carb Way (I can't remember the author), that explains how to balance it out so you aren't eating too many nor too little carbs. Its a balancing act. Now if my dh would increase his activity more he would see more success (for that matter so would I!). I think any "diet" is extreme and extremes should be avoided. Just my non-professional .02
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
fiber fiber fiber fiber
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And WATER. Lots and lots of water!
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
And URINE. And EXCREMENT. Lots and lots of urine and excrement from all the water and fiber.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
JNSB, you win the award for Worst Dietary Suggestion!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Man, if we could come up with a safe pill that temporarily nixes the sense of smell, Hatrack could make a fortune.
Nothing makes me less picky about what I consume than a head cold.
Carbs or cardboard, I couldn't care less.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
So, you're advocating Johnny's dietary suggestion for when you've got a cold?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Frankly, right now caramel sauce and mucus taste the same.
Blinfold me, and you could feed me a reeaaally cheap sundae.
(Excuse me while I go flush out my sinuses. )
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Physician, heal thyself!
Feel better, CT! (((((CT)))))
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
to rivka, from across the room
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<<<<<<<<CT>>>>>>>>>
You shouldn't be around all those sick people all day. They give you germs!
Take care of yourself, dear, we need you.
--------------------------
I talked to my dietician friend who also knows a fair amount about the low-carb diets Joey used, and she said the kidney damage from Atkins is because of the large amount of protein people consume.
The way Joey did it, you didn't substitute huge amounts of fats and proteins for carbs, you just decreased your carbs, while keeping the fat low (but including some fat of the correct type to keep the gall bladder working right) and increased the protein only moderately. My old low carb diet that I was on in my early 30s went like this. (Under a doctor's care, with frequent tests to be sure blood chemistry levels were good and ketones weren't too high.) 11 ounces of lean protein a day, lots and lots of water or other non caloric liquids no more than half of which should be caffeinated, 2 cups of boullion dissolved in hot water per day for the salt, 24 almonds a day or six pecan halves (which had just the right sort of fat), potassium supplements (2 k-durs a day), magnesium supplements (3 mg plus protein tablets a day), a multivitamin plus iron, and calcium supplements. I also took 3 gm of vitamin C a day (which he approved), and 200 IU of vitamin E for antioxidant effects.
This is what they worked out for me, based on lots of factors including how I responded in terms of ketones, blood pressure, and blood chemistry, so it wouldn't apply to everyone.
He kept me on that for a month, then added non-starchy vegetables and decreased the protein to 9 ounces a day (stil taking all the rest). He kept me on that until I reached my target body weight and had good blood sugar control, then added 45 gm of carb from starchy vegetables, while further decreasing the lean protein to only 6 ounces a day, and going off some of the supplements.
I have never studied Atkins closely, do I understand that the protein and fat are unlimited? That may be the difference.
Also, there WERE some side effects, which I disucussed with Joey as they arose, and he suggested remedies to. The only one we didn't figure out a way to work around was the mood effects, which Joey said are not common. I seem to be the only one of his patients who has experienced them, possibly, although I'm not sure he would have found out from the others. Joey and I are close friends, of course, so I feel freer about telling him things I wouldn't have brought up to another doctor. Also, there are hints from his other patients that something of the sort may have happened to others, but they never, perhaps, made the connection to their diet.
Anyway, that's why we decided to moderate the low-carbness of it this time around. It has worked again, but taken a lot longer this time. (My age is one factor in that as well. My diabetes has progressed.) Now I am resigned to never being able to eat like a normal person again. I don't care, though, it's worth it not to be sick.
[ January 03, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
This is kind of unrelated, but I was reminded of it by Mack's discussion of healthy sizes and whatnot. Does anyone else have some kind of freakishly huge difference between pants size and dress size? And if so, which one do you pay attention to when you're trying to get to your "ideal" size?
-pH
[ January 03, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: pH ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Get back to the important part - the Subway wraps
I'm not Atkinning, but I don't like the wad of bread in their subs either so I've been getting my usual sammiches with wraps instead. Much tastier.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Can you turn _anything_ into a wrap? Or do they have like a pre-set menu of wraps?
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
God, all this talk about eating right makes me realize how much I neglect my body. I have it lucky, because I'm a scrawny nothing. Unfortunately, that won't last for much longer. My family tends to become round at about age 30. My dad's tried all kinds of diets with my stepmom, I wish they'd just stop buying Oreos (my only recourse is to eat them before they can get to them, trans-fat and cancerous-white-sugar be damned!).
Anyway, does anyone know a way that I can prevent my metabolism from crashing into the ground in ten years? I know exactly why it happens, it's my body's way of saying, "You should be dead, no mammal is meant to live this long, now die!" But how do I stop it?
[edit] Subway makes decent food. I like the fact that, no matter what, the lettuce crunches. I eat at other fast food restaraunts but once a year, because you couldn't pay them enough money to buy a meal that crunches like that. Mmmm.
[ January 03, 2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
They've got two Atkins-OK sammiches in wraps, but they'll wrap anything for a $.50 surcharge.
Edited to add: any sub, that is. You sickos.
[ January 03, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
Yes, exercise The more muscle mass you have, the more efficient your metabolism is, so once you start becoming "round" its an uphill battle.
Of course, all this nutrition and healthy lifestyle stuff is easier said than done. We are very prone to convenience and our cravings/habits It takes a concentrated plan and effort to be healthy.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
mmmmm. I got weighed yesterday when I got my body composition analyzed.
I'm now down to a size 8.
But guess what my WEIGHT is. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*hazards a guess*
The scale wobbled around a lot, then settled on "Practically Perfect in Every Way . . .
. . . except you weigh a few pounds more than you want to! bwahahahahahahahaha!"
(It was a digital scale, else it wouldn't have been able to display that).
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
You're lucky I swore not to flip off anyone else on this board.
Yeah. The woman who weighed me said that weight and BMI is crap with people who are as active as I am and I'm well within the range of normal and creeping down towards lean (as in, musclely lean, not stick-lean).
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
to rivka, from across the room