posted
I had dinner last night with a good friend who lost 20 pounds in two months. His family has a history of heart disease so I was very happy for his weight loss progress.
He attributes his success to two changes:
1. He eats 6 small meals a day.
2. He only eats protein and fruits and vegetables. He has completely given up carb intake from bread, pasta, etc.
That sounds pretty healthy to me. Is he missing anything important by not eating any carbs other than the carbs he get from fruits and vegetables? I might try the same diet so I just wanted to consult the oracle that is Hatrack. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carbs prevent your body from digesting amino acids like Tryptophan which are essential to making neurotransmitters. I don't know if the fruit and the vegetables might take care of it. But I am inclined to keep whole grains in my diet. It sounds like your friend is on the Fat Flush Plan. I did that just before my nervous breakdown last year, though I wound up at Hatrack in the end. So I guess even stuff that seems to really stink can have a good result in the end (for me, anyway, maybe not for Hatrack!)
p.s. Most diet-heads are more familiar with the action of carbs in synthesizing neurotransmitters. I'm referring to the earlier stage, when things are digested in the stomach. Fat Flush does, after two weeks, have you reintroduce yams and sprouted wheat bread and the like...
posted
The Atkins diet which cuts out all carbs was in the news this week because of some research which says:
quote:A team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has found carbohydrates help to stimulate production of a key brain chemical called serotonin.
It controls our emotions, and a shortage can lead to mood swings and depression.
posted
The seratonin synthesizing action of carbs can also be accomplished by exercise and exposure to sunlight. But in order for the tryptophan to reach the bloodstream to be synthesized, the body can't be in ketosis or gluconeogenesis. (Which is the "fat burning" trick of Atkins).
Most diets have a trick to them. Body for Life had "free day". Carb Addicts had "reward meal(tm not kidding for once)". Atkins you can eat all you want just not carbs. Fat Flush and South Beach are the "I can do anything for two more weeks" approach.
I think a true meal plan would require some thought and consideration. I think of my body as another person, or at least a pet, that deserves an active relationship. I get out of it what I put in. That's my philosophy, FWIW.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who *gasp* actually prefers whole grains over the refined stuff? Not for everything, of course, but definitely for bread or rice. This is only in the last couple of years, though -- when I was a kid I thought brown rice was icky.
I'd be skeptical of a diet that doesn't allow whole grains.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm on a diet of sorts. I can't have red meat or pork (technically no chicken or turkey, but if it ain't fried then I'm still good). No wheat or white rice. No sugar or milk products. I have to watch what I eat as far as oils. I can have virgin olive oil, but it has to be cold. Basically it is going vegetarian. All this to clear my skin more than it has. Thank the man/woman/supreme being upstairs that I only have to be on it for 6-10 weeks. I started, but haven't stuck truly to it. My eating habits are healthier than they were before tho.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmm, you have to get the good stuf, mack. "Healthy Harvet" I think it's called. It's expensive, but since it's just me and the roomie, we can afford it. Yummy, and not too chewy - it is remarkably like regular pasta, really.
oh, and you need white flour for baking cakes and cookies, and it works better for tortillas as well.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need a certain amount of Carbs. There is no way around it. You don't need sugar, but our bodies our built to metabolize grains as a staple part of our diet.
You will lose a lot of weight on a low carb diet, but be prepared for an unhealthy percentage of that weight to be muscle. Since muscle is more dense, you will lose more weight but not necessarily slim down as much as if you'd simply lost weight on a balanced diet and exercise. Be prepared to not think as clearly and to have mood swings.
People who are already fit report feeling awful on this diet compared to their normal healthy diet.
By going low or no carb, you are forcing your body into an emergency mode metabolism. As soon as you get off this diet, (and it is a difficult one to maintain) you will gain back weight. Lots of it. And it won't work again. And there are no long term studies for the body being in a constant state of ketosis. Not only that, ketosis poses a risk to the kidneys.
quote: Be prepared to not think as clearly and to have mood swings.
This explains a lot. My friend, although much slimer, has been going through terrible mood swings. Thanks for all the great info everyone. I will pass it along to my friend. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mood swings are not because people inherently need all those carbs, but because we have become conditioned to crave them like one would something addictive (though I hesitate to say carbs create addiction). What matters is the kinds of carbs the person takes in, to help them mitigate this problem. Whole grains instead of the more processed ones, fruits and natural sugars (apples, bananas, grapes), and some natural drinks can easily keep the avoidance of heavy carbs in food problem free. I stay away from full-on Atkins diet meals because it's too easy for people to miss eating what they need to eat, because Atkins has become something of a fad. However, Atkins himself was very much on to something (though he wasn't the first to come up with it) with the lower carb intake. Most "reports" that come out against the diet are not really worth taking without a grain of salt, because the "studies" are paid for by food companies who have a whole lot to lose from people cutting down carb intake. Not to mention the craploads of grain and potato and corn farmers who hate the name "Atkins" when they hear it.
No, Atkins is not the cure-all for weight problems, but lower carb intake mixed with the intake of better carbs is. Just like with any diet, it's not how much, but what kinds of food you eat.
I'd suggest your friend have a small portion of whole grain rice at least every day. It's the best straight carbs he can get that can easily burn off.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carbohydrates are the easiest to convert to energy. They are what keeps me churning through twenty hour days and twelve hour rehearsals. But, because I will invariably expend as much or more energy than I take in, I can eat anything I want anyways. In the past three years, I've gained about three inches and lost about five pounds. People tell me I always have energy. Whether or not that is true, I have more energy than the next guy because I carb up like mad every day.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
More than you possibly wanted to know about dieting from the Doc:
Okay, here goes my spiel. (Look, just be grateful I'm not really in the room with you. In a forum, you can just skip over this. If we were in the room together, you'd have to hear it all.)
Everything you eat is made up of five things. Proteins, carbs, fat, fiber, and water.
Every gram of protein you eat contains 4 calories.
Every gram of carbohydrates you eat contains 4 calories.
Every gram of fat you eat contains 9 calories.
Fiber and water contain no calories.
If you eat more calories than you burn, you're going to gain weight. If you eat fewer calories than you burn you're going to lose weight. Despite all the different kinds of "trick" diets, "special" diets, whatever, this is the basic formula for weight loss.
Okay, so if that's the case, you're left with two requirements if you want to lose weight: You need to burn more calories, and consume less calories.
Naturally, the best way to burn more calories is by exercising. Not only do you burn the calories you expend while you exercise, but if you get your heart rate up to aerobic levels for twenty minutes a day, you can increase your body's base metabolic rate for hours afterwards. So you'll burn a ton of calories.
Weight training is also good. Not only is it good exercise, but if your body has more muscle, it will burn more calories. Muscle is high-maintenance tissue, and calories have to be burned just to keep it going. Fat just sits there, requiring no maintenance at all.
You can also burn more calories based on what you eat. For example, if you drink eight glasses of ice-cold water a day, your body will have to burn calories to warm that water up to 98.6 degrees. You burn enough calories to lose a pound of fat in two weeks that way.
Also, eating fiber can increase your metabolism. Fiber contains no calories, yet requires energy to process. Hence some foods have "negative calories," like celery and other greens.
Or, eating multiple times throughout the day can keep your body in a constant state of digestion. This digestion burns calories. But since you're not eating a lot, it won't "weigh you down."
Some diets take this to an extreme, though, trying to regulate the entire metabolic system entirely through food, without requiring exercise.
The Atkins plan is based on the idea that by eliminating carbs, your body has to expend more energy in order to convert protein and fat into a "carb-like" state, so it can use them for energy.
Does this work?
Well, if you eat one gram of carbs, there are only four calories. A gram of fat has nine calories.
Dr. Atkins will point out, though, that part of that nine calories will be burned up just to get that fat you ate into a useful state.
This is true. However, it's only true if the fat calories get burned the minute you eat them. If they don’t, and the fat gets stored, all nine calories get planted directly on your waist. It takes no energy to store fat as fat.
On the other hand, while the carb calories do not require calories to be made useful for energy, it does require calories to convert the carbs into fat. So if you've had a little too much, not all four grams of carbs will see their way to your waist.
And, here's the big caveat--not all weight loss is good. As Amka explained, there's lots of weight you can lose--you can lose water weight, you can lose muscle, and you can lose fat. Really, the only one you're worried about is fat. If the weight you’re losing is muscle, that’s actually bad.
And there lies the problem--fat is actually the hardest one to get your body to burn. Right now, today, if you started starving yourself, your body is not going to start using fat for nourishment. It's not.
If your body thinks you’re starving, it’s going to hold on to your fat like mad, because it doesn’t know how long this “famine” is going to last.
The "Emergency Mode Metabolism" Amka mentions is one where the body does everything it can to avoid burning your fat. It generally plunders your muscles and the sugars stored in your muscles first. So while the pounds DO come off, you're losing muscle, not fat. And since pounds of muscle take up considerably less space than pounds of fat, you're not going to get any smaller around the middle.
This "Emergency Mode Metabolism" is called Ketosis, and it's the direct result of not having enough carbohydrates. For years, athletes used the same "Ketostix" that Atkins dieters now use, but for the reverse purpose--in order to AVOID Ketosis, because they knew it for what it was--not the time when your body becomes a "fat burning furnace" but the time when your body most stubbornly starts holding on to fat, and cannibalizing muscle.
Now, if you persist in a state of ketosis long enough (and you'll know when you're in it, because, among other things, your breath will be unbearable) your body WILL be forced to start burning the fat. And the inches will start to come off behind the pounds. You'll think things are great.
But the problem is, your body is coming at your fat cells with a starvation mentality. It doesn't know when it will see carbs again, and so it is still yielding up the fat reluctantly. It's slowing down your metabolism, so that you burn fewer calories a day, so it can tenaciously cling to as much of that fat as it can.
But the worst comes when you end the diet. Because as far as your body is concerned, you have just come away from a period of famine. And as far as your body is concerned, another famine may strike again at any moment.
Consequently, it will vigorously begin to store as much food as it possibly can as fat, saving up for the winter, so to speak. And you will actually gain more weight than before the diet. Because now your metabolism is running slower, as I mentioned, and your body has less muscle on it, which means it burns fewer calories to maintain the muscle.
The sad truth is that your body just doesn't want to give up fat easily. The most fat you can hope to lose is 1-3 pounds a week. If you're losing more weight than that, you're not losing fat. You're losing water and muscle.
A good, healthy diet should look something like this:
Exercise every day. Weight train a few times a week.
Eat small portions throughout the day. Either eat six small meals, or three reasonable meals and have three small healthy snacks.
Eat unprocessed foods. In other words, foods that are as close to their natural state as possible (A twinky, for example, is not found in nature).
Have some of each of the five things at each meal. (Protein, Carbs, Fat, Fiber, Water.) Despite the Atkins people, your body really does need more Carbs than protein.
What will happen? At first, you won't lose weight. But you will lose inches. Your clothes will fit better. This is because you'll be gaining muscle as you lose fat. The muscle is denser, so you have the same number of pounds in less space.
(Notice that this is the opposite of the Ketosis plan, where the pounds come off before the inches. This time, the right weight is being lost.)
Then, pounds will follow. As you have a greater amount of muscle, your base metabolic rate will increase, and you'll be burning more calories just standing around.
Because you're constantly providing nutrients to your body, it won't feel as obligated to store the fat as tenaciously. And since you're constantly digesting, even that will burn more calories.
And then your body really will be a metabolic furnance. You really will be burning more calories. At a relaxed, safe, calm pace. The same gradual process that you took when you put the wieght on. ___________________________________________
Another note: Some of this varies depending on how overweight you are, and how old you are. Believe it or not, the more overweight you are, the easier it is to lose weight. Your body will actually increase its base metabolic rate as you gain significant weight because it really doesn't want to be that big. So someone who is seriously overweight will experience better results with ANY diet than someone who is simply trying to lose 10 to 15 "vanity pounds."
Also, the older you get, the more your basal metabolic rate slows down. So somebody in their thirties is naturally going to get different results than somebody in their fourties.
_________________________________________
So what does all of this have to with the topic?
The basis of the Atkins diet--that Ketosis is good--flies in the face of what most dieticians and physicians believe about eating. Most of us feel Ketosis is bad.
Losing weight too quickly, and the wrong way, is actually programming your body to become a fat storage machine.
Carbs stop that from happening.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I am not on it, yet , there is no valid objection to the Atkins diet. It is the default, human deit. The human body did not evolve to healthily digest all the refined sugars and complex carbohydrates that out modern culture throws at it.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Atkins' diet is not default for humans. There are plenty of objections that can be raised about it, mostly in the extreme lengths the diet goes with avoiding carbs.
Remember: we no longer have the digestive system of mankind even 2,000 years ago, let alone further than that. Not just the length and superficial differences of the digestive tract, either—the amounts of different chemistry in our bodies, as well. Saying "this is how man is supposed to eat" is like taking someone from today and expecting them to easily digest a diet prepared exactly like 2, 3, or 4 thousand years ago. There are still some things that are prepared similarly, but nowhere near the same. Any normal person would be sick constantly having to eat food like our ancestors did.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is mankind designed to eat baked goods and refined sugars? They have both shown to be the two most harmful things to man ovet the course of history. And I would argue that our digestive systems are nearly identical in design (DNA codon formation of cells of those tissues) as it were 2000 years ago. I don't think that even selective breeding and survival of the "slothest"(people who can handly bread the best because it was often the only staple at times) changed that aspect.
quote:Am I the only one who *gasp* actually prefers whole grains over the refined stuff? Not for everything, of course, but definitely for bread or rice. This is only in the last couple of years, though -- when I was a kid I thought brown rice was icky.
I'd be skeptical of a diet that doesn't allow whole grains.
quote:How is mankind designed to eat baked goods and refined sugars? They have both shown to be the two most harmful things to man ovet the course of history.
Really? That's why up until about 250 years ago it was considered charity to share one's bread? That's why soldiers kept baked bread, leavened or not, as a large part of their rations? Someone's been lying to you.
quote:And I would argue that our digestive systems are nearly identical in design (DNA codon formation of cells of those tissues) as it were 2000 years ago.
Unless you can conclusively prove that with documentation and source, I'm going to continue to believe the gobs of anthropologists and archeoligists (and doctors) who say otherwise. After all, I could argue that the Earth is shaped like a teapot, but that doesn't make it so. Believe it or not, the human digestive system is not built like it used to be, for better or for worse (and, in most cases, both).
quote:I don't think that even selective breeding and survival of the "slothest"(people who can handly bread the best because it was often the only staple at times) changed that aspect.
You don't know your history too well, do you? Nor do you know your human biology. It wasn't about natural selection so much as it was much more slowly adapting to different food preparation techniques. This is still observable in the modern day: compare the body chemistry and digestive system of an American with that of someone who lives in Sudan, to someone who lives in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, to someone who lives in the poorer areas of SouthEast Asia. They are all basically the same—human beings, people—and yet the different diets are reflected in their digestive system. Stomach size, amount of stored food (body fat), even chemical makeup of stomach and intestinal enzymes. Not a whole lot—we are, after all, human beings all—but it's really not a stretch to work out why this is so. In fact, it's the height of ignorance and denial of science to not see this.
And this is one of the things I dislike about the Atkins books and dogma: it really is (too) dogmatic, and it's often too misleading to those who are convinced that because Atkins has said it so well, that it must be true. Excess carbs are going to be stored as fat, yes. A diet of refined sugar is not going to yeild you the nutrients and amino acids that your body (and brain) needs—there are some that can only be found in meat. However, Atkins' diet is a bit overboard, a polar reaction to the poor eating habits of America, and while not as dangerous as some of the food industry would have you believe, the diet isn't optimal for people to stay on for their entire lives. There are other, better, more longer-lived low-carb diets that exist, which better get the person the carbohydrates they need, while avoiding the excess of all of the non-essentials.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I would argue that our digestive systems are nearly identical in design (DNA codon formation of cells of those tissues) as it were 2000 years ago.
::Glances at bookshelf and sees book titled Six Thousand Years of Bread::
::Goes to get a slice of whole wheat toast::
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
John your personal attacks are not appreciated, you have done nothing to show I am wrong short of just saying so. So people like bread and refined sugar, that's the point! It doesn't mean it's good for them. That's a huge fallacy. People throughout history haven't made the wisest choices concerning diet and such, do the gobs of anthropologists tell you about that? Not only was sugar overdosed on, but they had ornate LEAD straws, fequently the rich forced themselves to throw up just so they could eat more, and so on.
posted
Um...you need carbs. You need carbs in exercise for muscle fibers and such. If these humans from however many years ago had to hunt for food, they STILL needed carbs for the hunt. Protein for replishing stores and repairing/building muscle.
And I'm not a carb freak. I'm hypoglycemic, so my doctor TOLD me to eat more protein and fat because of my reaction to simple carbohydrates. Carbs shoot through my system too quickly and leave too much insulin in its wake. Protein and fat "stick" and so I'm not hungry until the next reasonable meal (400-500 calories per).
And I work out.
And I watch my caloric intake.
And my health-field friends scold me.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't help you out on that one PSI. Even if I were to sit on my a** for a long time doing nothing I don't gain weight (it extremely pisses me off when I don't do anything anyway). So cheers to people who weigh in at 130 lbs. soaking wet, or if less, then less.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another fallacy is that anti-carb diets like Atkins cut out nearly all carbs, they don't. The 2 week induction phase does this to put a stop to what is usually a carb-overdose situation before thand, and then you phase back in simple, natural carbs from things like fruits and vegetables and whole wheat.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*frown* Ketosis is not a good thing. Really, really not. Especially for people who are physically active (exercise vigorously 5-6 days a week for an hour at least).
And I fight my weight, too. Rrrrrr.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all my years of fighting my weight, (and I did at one point lose 44 pounds on a low-carb diet, but put it all back on again when I got pregnant, because I went off the diet) I have figured out what causes me to be healthy.
It's not eating junk food, cutting back on sweets, taking vitamins, and exercising.
Sad thing is, I already knew that.
Losing weight is not easy, and there are no quick fixes. I happen to think bread is a good thing, I enjoy eating it. I don't think one should pig out on over-processed white bread, but I think a slice of whole wheat toast for breakfast is better for me than eating bacon and eggs fried in grease. Ketosis, carb-addiction, all that aside - I think the best route to weight loss for me is plain old common sense.
Be active, eat intelligently. Don't drink or smoke. See your doctor for regular checkups.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
One of my absolute favorite and comforting memories is of Grandma making homemade bread every week. She still ground up her own wheat and mixed by hand and kneaded and shaped and all of that stuff. Grandpa and I would sneak up to the house and cut off the end pieces (nummy) - which was very naughty of us, but always expected, I think - since Grandma usually managed to be busy elsewhere for about 15 minutes after the bread came out of the oven. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
For people slightly overweight (or not at all, although to read the AMA you'd think we were all fatter-n-sin)the weight they propose to lose are vanity pounds.
I.e., a woman I worked with was 5'10" and weighed maybe all of 125#. She was always working on losing another 5-10. I am all of 5'6" and could actually stand to lose 15 lbs. But since I don't have bags and rolls and other "obvious" signs of obesity, those pounds would be called vanity pounds.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey docmagik, I started a low calorie diet about four weeks ago and have lost about 15 pounds. However I lost 5 pounds on my first week. I have been exercising and eating throught the day but I was worried when I read the part of your post about how many pounds a week one normally loses to lose fat. Anyway I was wondering if the diet is removing my muscles rather than fat.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Anything more than 1-2 lbs per week weight loss is generally muscle tissue and not fat.
And Shan--apparently my last 10 lbs are vanity as well. I need to get rid of fat to get better tone. *sigh*
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I didn't personally attack you, Brian, you make no sense. And once again, you're using misleading "facts" to try to prove a point. You can show no proof that people's biology is exactly the same, and yet you refute what many scientists have said to the contrary. Gee, which to believe? Someone who is turning this into a personal match on an internet forum, or professionals who study this sort of thing for a living?
And I never said Atkins makes a person cut out all carbs, but at the highest point of the diet, the person is taking way too few. At the stage for the "regular" diet, it's still arguably low, because it has a baseline that does not account for the many differences in physiology, only taking into account small variations in its layout. This is what usually causes the mood problems or "withdrawl" symptoms with those on a Atkins diet (as opposed to one that has been around longer than Atkins, and has been tested by more health professionals than Dr. Atkins himself).
Read docmagik's post carefully. Ketosis is the crux of the Atkins diet, which means if you don't stay on it, you run the risk of throwing off your body even more after you go off.
quote:But the problem is, your body is coming at your fat cells with a starvation mentality. It doesn't know when it will see carbs again, and so it is still yielding up the fat reluctantly. It's slowing down your metabolism, so that you burn fewer calories a day, so it can tenaciously cling to as much of that fat as it can.
But the worst comes when you end the diet. Because as far as your body is concerned, you have just come away from a period of famine. And as far as your body is concerned, another famine may strike again at any moment.
Feast or famine is not a good deitary exercise, no matter how well-reasoned it is laid out by someone. Losing weight is simple, it's losing the correct kind of weight that is important.
And please note: I'm on a low-carb diet. However, I won't touch Atkins', not only because it costs more than a typical low-carb diet, but because I don't have to shrink in fear of carbs, and I am losing the weight gradually (instead of the "six week wonder loss" method). And mine will stay off, I'll be keeping more lean muscle mass, and since I'm exercising—which is really what burns off the inches—I'll be healthier. That is what's natural: watching and understanding what you eat, along with exercise. Too many lazy Americans who want weight-loss in a pill or some special "miracle diet" have got it all wrong, and are causing too much misinformation to spread (even more with the availability of the internet).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Naturally, I can't say for sure, but if it was all fat, you'd have lost about an inch off your waist (a good rule of thumb is four pounds=one inch off the waist).
And the first few pounds are the easiest to lose.
But some of the other weight you lose intially--water weight, for example--isn't bad to lose, so even if it isn't fat, it may not be muscle, and you're probably okay.
But if it continues to happen that fast, you may want to up your calorie intake a bit. Ketostix could tell your for sure, but aren't really neccesary. Just use the tape meausre once a week, right along with the scale.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is always the Amish diet. You eat anything you want, pies, beef with gravy, potatoes, eggs, toast, and bacon. Then, you work your behind off all day, walk everywhere, and have no tv to sit in front of eating a WHOLE BOX of Tagalongs.
They put pedometers on some Amish folk(I guess it was a pretty big deal to get them to use the technology)and compared them to other Americans' activity levels.
I think we can devise any diet we want, but unless we are more physical, we will be flabby. I have been going to Curves, and it was GREAT, but I got bursitis in my shoulders. Now I am a cranky, Girl Scout cookie-eating member of the couch potato society. And I HAVE to say, the Internet doesn't help. It sucks me in to my slippers instead of my New Balance running shoes which are, sadly, still amost brand new looking after two years.
I had also heard of eating an apple fifteen minutes before a meal. Surprisingly, thi is called the "Apple Diet."
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you, Elizabeth. There are too many people that want a magic diet that will "whisk the pounds away" but they aren't motivated enough to get active. (I'm included in the unactive group.) That is very unhealthy and never works right.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do make sense, you did attack me personally several times.
quote:Someone's been lying to you.
Noone lied to me, thank you. Here you assume I must be wrong and make the indirect inference that what I am saying is a lie, whether told by me or repeated by me it makes no difference.
quote:You don't know your history too well, do you? Nor do you know your human biology.
Thanks, I guess my college education was a complete waste. If you didn't mean to be insulting you could have easily stuck to the issues instead of insulting my knowledge in whole fields of studies.
quote: In fact, it's the height of ignorance and denial of science to not see this.
Nothing like hyperbole to strengthen an argument.
quote:and it's often too misleading to those who are convinced that because Atkins has said it so well, that it must be true
That's an insult to my intelligence and probably many others, you really think people don't think things out for themselves? I can guarantee you I did.
I could list a few other little comments you made but my taking time to do this is already making me bored. From what I've seen you're very arrogant and snide and you deny it when called on it. You have assumed in this thread that others MUST be wrong if they disagree with you on several of these issues, and you go on to then blanketly insult their intelligence on huge issues like whole fields of study. If this continues I am just going to ignore you.
On the issue itself: the Atkins diet is not overboard, it DOES allow for the necessary carb requirements, it simply cuts out net carbs from refined sugars and processed white flours, etc. Whole wheat carbs and the like are all allowed.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
