Atkin's Diet

[Munkay]

...  I hate you now.  :(

This is not a comment directed at you Warlocke, but rather a message directed to everyone.

Be kind to your tall skinny feathered friends.

By no means am I trying to assign one 'body type' as being better or worse than another. But merely wanted to point out that 'tall and skinny' isn't always bright and good.

Medically: Spontaneous Pneumo Thorax!

Long story short, a minor surgery and a major one, two weeks in the hospital, 4 large scars, and a 5% chance of repeating, later; spontaneous pneumo is not a fun time. Blisters called 'blebs' form on lungs, can cause a hole, and a 'hole' lot of fun. (:P) From what the doctors told me when I was in the hospital, its a common occurance in tall skinny builds, particularly men.

Oh, and not to mention the 10 x-ray technician who didn't beleive me when I told them they needed to use extra long film. Talk about risky buisness, 26 chest x-rays in 2 weeks can' be too healthy. :blink:

Socially, the best comment I've ever recieved was "Damn man, you look like you came out of a * concentration camp." <_<

One time my girlfriend and I were out eating and one of the people in our party looks over after my girl ordered a salad and rudely yelled 'what are you trying to do? Rub it in that your skinny?' She happened to like the house salad.

By no means do I mean pity, or 'boo hoo life is bad being skinny' but just like any body size, its hard to constantly have it pointed out, and even sometimes your genetic metabolic disposition held against you.

I've noticed in some ways I've developed a mild case of 'little man syndrome.' Being so skinny was what originally got me to start lifting weights, though rcently I've come to terms with it and exercise for fitness' sake.

At the end of the day all we can do is be happy with what we're given. Exercise and eat well if unhappy, but just accept there are limits to the results.

-Munk

[kandrathe]

A crunch is just the stomach "crunching" portion of a sit-up. The benefit comes from the isomorphic strain on the abdominal muscles. It tones the abdominals and makes the "six pack" as it were. Now, Pete's other advice was that if you have strong well defined abdominals beneath a layer of fat, no one will see them. So, you need to burn off the fat. Fat really doesn't turn into muscle, well if it does, not much. Fat stores energy. The only way to burn fat is to consume less calories than you expend so that your body will retrieve the reserves you've built up. One must be careful about this process (i.e. why starvation diets are dangerous) because if you stop consuming enough, the body will harvest its raw materials from any source including internal organs. So it is better to lose a few pounds per week, rather than make a drastic change.

The best way to burn fat is to find an exercise that you will do consistenty, same with diet. Don't think of it as a one time thing to achieve the result you want, but rather a commitment to a lifestyle change to adopt eating and exercise habits that you enjoy, and will keep you healthy.

[LochnarITB]

Something or somebody really does not want me to respond to your post. I was sitting here trying to decide if I could respond without going into a rant when BAM! I hear the thunder boom followed immediately by the click of my cable router shutting down and the TV going off. Always one to enjoy a good storm, I went out to sit on the porch and listen to the rain while I thought about what I might say and waited for the cable to be restored. I came back in just in time for the cable to come back. I did a few other things and then came back to my saved tab session (Firefox lovers will know what I mean) to try to compose something. I had just started when BZZZZ! I heard what I thought was the transformer on the pole frying. Out went all the power. It turns out it was just the wire to our house because the rest of the neighborhood still had power. It took a couple hours but the power is now back so, here I go.

Fatkins died from his own diet.

This is not true. You are pushing the myth that was put out there by the medical establishment that can't see past what they have decided to be true. Take a look at this link and this one.

Both his cardiac problems and his "obesity" are explained very reasonably. Someone I went to high school with died from heart damage caused by a viral infection he had as a young child. Over the last few years, I dealt with large wounds and associated infections. One of the major concerns of the doctors was to follow me for any possible heart damage brought on by the infections. I have also seen, and personally experienced, how the body can bloat and change when normal functions shut down and the fluids, both consumed and pumped in by the doctors, are not properly eliminated. People can become almost unrecognizable to even those closest to them over a very short period of time.

Excercise and moderation have worked since the dawn of time (or, rather, since the dawn of the point when people had enough surplus food for obesity to become a national problem), and they'll always work.

True. However, this is somewhat dismissive. It does not recognize the time and societal pressures that people experience today. The ideal, of course, is to take the time needed to do what's needed for yourself. The reality is that many people spend so much time on family, friends, work and all the other things that need to get done that they don't even have time for adequate sleep. When out doing all these things, a person driving down the main drag in any small town or big city is inundated with all the eateries just screaming "Good Eats" and "Super Size Me". TV, movies and periodicals further taunt us with all the things we enjoy or think we would probably enjoy. Walking down the aisles of even the small grocery stores we are confronted with more temptations than much of the world or even our grandparents could ever imagine. It is no wonder that studies have shown that less than 5% of dieters actually maintain their weight loss long term (although that number has gone up 0.0000004% because there is no way I am taking back what I've gotten rid of!).

If you deprive your body of carbohydrates (energy), it will tap into its reserves (fat) to compensate.&nbsp; The problem is that rapid fat-loss (and the subsequent weight loss) can lead to ketones, gall stones, and possibly even kidney stones - of course, any kind of rapid weight-loss (including starvation) can do that.

ketones - True. However, ketones are normal. Ketones are a fuel for the body just as is glucose. Ketones are part of breaking down the fat deposits. Atkins uses ketones as a measuring stick for the effectiveness of the program. Ketones can be flushed out in the urine instead of being burned for energy. This is broken down fat being washed out of the body without ever being used as fuel. Therefore, you get the loss of weight from the ketones that are burned up in the body as well as the bonus of those flushed without ever being used. Ketones are only a problem in the condition know as ketoacidosis. This happens in diabetics and the acid is the component that is damaging to the organs and circulatory system.

gall stones - False. Gall stones are not brought on by the fat loss but rather by what is often lacking in the diet that brought about the weight loss. Gall stones are usually made of cholesterol in the bile produced in the gall bladder. This formation is normally kept in check by bile acids. However, these bile acids are made from food, mainly from protein. Lack of protein, as well as excess carbohydrates, can reduce this production allowing the bile to thicken and drop cholesterol out of suspension forming stones.

kidney stones - False. Kidney stones are also not formed by the fat loss but by the change in blood chemistry caused by the diet used to lose the fat. Atkins does get a black mark here. High protein consumption raises the acidity of the blood. Lack of other foods to buffer the acid requires the body to do it. The body uses calcium to buffer the acid. If the consumption of calcium (preferably from food sources) is insufficient, the body uses its stores of calcium, the bones. This calcium is then deposited in the kidneys and, in large enough amounts, can form kidney stones. This leeching of calcium from the bones is also of concern because of the possible long term contribution to osteoporosis. This calcium factor is something that is becoming less of a problem as research is learning more about how to better supplement calcium for those who don't or can't get enough from their diet.

With the Fatkins diet, you're literally starving your body of energy, forcing it to tap into its reserves to make up for the lack.

And this a problem because...? That is what any weight reduction diet must do. If the body does not tap into its reserves, it will never burn off the stored fat. In fact, any diet (note that diet does not mean weight reduction diet) that does not exactly balance output will bring about a gain if the imbalance is excessive in. To better illustrate this, if one were to eat a single ounce of hard cheese (about a 1" cube) in excess of their body's need each day, over a one year period you would gain ten pounds!

The only difference is that, unlike fasting, your body won't go psycho to rebuild the lost stores once you start eating normally again.

This a very significant difference, particularily while in the weight loss phase of the diet. The Atkins diet brings much greater sustained satiety. Other types of diets, particularly those that choose carbohydrates and restrict fat and protein, tend to bring on what I like to call "chinese food syndrome" - 30 minutes after eating you want to eat again. This is actually very real. The reason that people experience this often with chinese food is that they tend to use protein as a flavor agent. They also tend to be low in fat unless you go for the deep fried whatever. They tend to be vegetable which the stomach processes quickly and moves it on. They also raise blood insulin quickly which then falls again just as quicly causing more hunger. The body quickly screams "Give me more!"

Now, my take on Atkins:

Most of the people out there that say they are on Atkins or, more accurately, low carb high protein know very little about what they are doing. They have never opened one of the books or even done any research on the internet. They have taken what they have seen in the news on TV or in the paper and gone with that - "I'm gonna start counting carbs. Billy Bob said I should have 40 (or 60 or 100). What do you mean bananas have carbs, aren't bananas good for me!?"

Carb count has become a marketing ploy for sellers to play with. Carb count has morphed into effective carbs. They take the carbs and subtract fiber and sugar alchohol. It has been shown that fiber passes through the body without affecting the body's chemistry but the same can't be said for sugar alchohols. Marketing people know that there are no regulations on this so they feel they can just pull this out of their hats and know that most people will accept it under the false assumption that it must be true if they are allowed to put it on their labels. It is also used for marketing proteins. Walk down the frozen or fresh meat aisle and see how many are labeled "0 Fat Grams!" Duh!

Because most people don't really understand the actual Atkins program, it gets bad press for what people actually do. I recently saw a news report of a survey of people who claimed to be on a low carb high protein diet. More than 60% of the people surveyed, more than Atkins, South Beach, Neandrathal, etc. combined, reported to be on "Their Own Version". Luckily, low carb high protein is now becoming "sexy". There are researchers out there that would love to make their mark by proving established medicine wrong. They have glommed on to it and are finally doing studies on the validity of Dr. Atkins' claims. They are starting to prove that people do lose weight faster in the short term but that over time the weight loss tends to converge with other methods. They are also showing that the program can assist diabetics by better regulating blood sugars. They are also showing that, contrary to majority medical opinion, the diet actually improves blood cholesterol, possibly due to lost weight with excess fat being a contributor to high cholesterol and for the same reasons it can help diabetics.

The biggest misunderstanding about Atkins is the carbs. It does not support a total lack of carbs. Instead, it is about making wise choices of a limited number of carbs. It pushes you toward natural lower carb vegetables and fruit. It also discourages processed foods. For example, it welcomes butter but forbids margarine, the former a natural fat and the latter a highly processed one. Another benefit of limiting carbs and putting the focus on low carb vegetables and fruit and on protein is that these are foods that have a low glycmic index. This means that blood sugar levels are much more regular and don't exhibit large spikes shortly after eating. This keeps the insulin level even also which prevents crashing blood sugars, due to excess insulin, which promote further hunger and cravings.

I have done Atkins in the past. I was successful with it. The reason I didn't continue with it was boredom. I didn't want to play with it like so many people do. They didn't even have a lot of the "low carb" things that they do now because it had not yet become the in thing that it is now. Lots of steak and roast beef was great but the cheese burger without the great big bun and brocoli or cauliflower instead of the baked potato under the sour cream just got old. My current success has been due to being one of those that are on "Their Own Version". It is kind of a half breed of high protein and low calorie. I eat a lot of low fat protein and my carbs tend to be salads and low calorie high fiber breads. It has done very well by me.

I think that Atkins and its many variants are additional tools for people who want to lose weight. As with any tool, a person must chose the one that fits the job. In this case, the job is to be a diet that brings the desired weight loss and is relatively easy for the person to stick with.

In my not-very-informed opinion, I think the reason that the low-carb diets work is that most junk foods are primarily carbohydrates.&nbsp; So, people on low-carb diets have more motivation to avoid snacking.&nbsp; You have to be really hungry to grab a bun-free hot dog or something when you're just looking for a snack.

Sort of. "Snacking" is not a bad thing. In fact, my current weight loss has been done with what would appear to be snacking to someone that doesn't undersand. What I actually do is to have 5-6 small meals spread throughout the day rather than 2-3 large meals. This helps to prevent hunger both by frequency and leveling blood sugar. The problem with most food that people snack on is that they tend to be carbohydrates, often highly processed and refined, combined with fat. Think about it - candys, chips, crackers and pastries - all are examples of a starch and/or a sugar combined with a fat such as oil for frying or butters and chocolate. The carbs spike the blood sugar and the body spikes its insulin. Insulin tells the body to store fat and the fat built into the snack is quickly and easily tucked away for later use.

Exercise helps three ways.&nbsp; First, it burns calories directly.&nbsp; About 65 calories per km (and the amazing thing is that that number is relatively constant if you walk, jog, run, or even swim).&nbsp; Second, the muscle mass developed from exercise burns more calories.&nbsp; It raises your basal metabolic rate, so that you can actually "diet" and be eating more.&nbsp; Third, it is (after a while) both fun and addicting.&nbsp; Which is good, considering the other beneficial effects.

I would like to get to the point of addiction to exercise. In my high school years and early 20's, I got a fair amount of exercise. It was mostly things like walking the golf course, riding bike and some tennis. I never had any interest in the gym. That was where all the hard bodies and jocks were, very few of whom did not see fit to have fun at my expense. I was more into doing my own thing where I could enjoy myself and do well enough that others at least did not feel the need to berate me. When I got out into the working world and ended up behind a desk, much of even that exercise went away because it was too time consuming. Over the last year and a half, I have been completely sedentary due to medical issues. 23+ hours a day I was in bed or in a chair with my legs up. Even with that restriction, I was able to lose weight through diet alone. As things are now improving, I find myself wanting to hit a gym. I am getting old enough to no longer care what others might say or do. I know how far I have come and they will never understand that so they can think whatever they want. Besides, the gym is where all the hard body females hang out too. I'm sure there are one or two just aching for an older man to sweep them away so they can finally give up all that exercise silliness. :lol:

I've been on a reverse diet for the last 15 years.&nbsp; It's not going too well though.&nbsp; I've only gained 10 pounds.

I've always been skinny.&nbsp; When I was a teenager, my father encouraged me to eat sticks of butter.&nbsp; I always figured it would be something I'd grow out of and that one day I'd have to stop eating whatever I wanted.&nbsp; Well, I recently turned 30 and I can still eat whatever the hell I want without gaining an ounce.

:blink: <_< :( :angry:

Well, I guess it turned into a rant after all. Oh well, it had to be said.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Fat really doesn't turn into muscle . . .

That's the trouble with verbal shortcuts or idioms, sometimes they don't convey the same meaning to the listener (reader) as they do to the speaker (writer).

Of course fat doesn't turn into muscle. The complete concept is something like this: "Weight at a given height (or any index calculated from this) by itself does not matter. Percentage of body fat does. Exercising builds lean muscle tissue. When combined with a diet that forces the body to use stored fat, it can lead to a weight reduction, a weight increase, or no change in weight depending on the rates of building muscle mass and burning fat. The final result is less fat, more muscle and a lower percentage of body fat. Some of the weight that was in fat (but not the material that was in the fat) is now in muscle. And, in that sense, the dieter/exerciser has 'turned fat into muscle.'" Without getting into "energy" food versus "building material foods", that's about the best I can do. Too much of a mouthful for casual conversation, too little to really satisfy a nutritionist or bio-chemist :)

I'll stick with the short form :)

--Pete

[Deadlyman]

First of all, let me say, I am on a modified Atkins diet. The modified part is low fat. It has worked for me. I has lost almost 70lbs on this diet. Yes Gris, I have had the Broccoli N cheese meal as part of the diet. I love it!!
I mostly eat steaks, pork, salads & broccoli. I am starting to see more and more "Carb Smart" foods, even though more and more people are bashing it. I have tried the Weight Watchers diet and it did not work for me.
My diet actually is prescribed to me by a doctor who has it as part of a program he has developed. I take some medicine in the morning that supresses my appetite and at night that takes my cravings away. I used to be a regular soda freak. Taco Bell used to be my chef. My blood pressure was 190/120. I am 31 years old. I was at one point 304 lbs. I am now around 224. I am working out to get rid of the rest of the flab. I feel much healthier. People are noticing the weight loss. My self esteem is much higher now.

I will say this in closing. Like all diets, it works for some people, for others it wont. Go with what works for you. It really is your choice.

[Deadlyman]

oops sorry I meant to edit and I reposted instead.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Threaded view is your friend.

--Pete

[ceolstan]

Fatkins died from his own diet

As a matter of fact, he didn't. It would behoove you to check out the facts before you post.

Atkins died from complications from a fall. As a result of the hospital stay, his body was swollen from fluids. The group that claimed that he died from his diet is linked to a vegetarian organization that resents the claims behind Atkins's work. Only a few days prior to his death, Atkins had had a physical which reported him as in good shape.

Also, insofar as the science behind the Atkins diet, well, it's sound. I'm not trained to understand it all, but my sister has an advanced degree in biology and has read all the studies involved when her partner decided he wanted to go on the Atkins diet. Despite hours in the gym and running several miles every other day, he was overweight and his blood profile was atrocious. Since he was doing everything "right" and still getting nowhere, he decided to try out the Atkins as a last resort. She, alarmed at the prospect of his eating so much protein, went over the research. It was sound.

It is a myth that you can't eat carbohydrates on the Atkins diet. The diet itself is structured across several phases. The first is a two-week period in which the individual restricts carbs quite a bit. At the same time, however, the individual is to eat 2.5-3 cups of vegetables per day (amount depends on the type of vegetable). Go measure out that much vegetable and see what it looks like. The amount is huge. In fact, then, what the diet does is eliminate empty carbohydrates (ever look at the nutritional profile of bread or pasta? It's nothing to write home about) in favor of vegetables.

Once the initial two-week period is over, the individual gradually increases the amount of carbohydrates per day to find that individual's balance point: the point where the individual can maintain a healthy weight while eating a wide variety of foods.

Atkins, by the way, is not the only approach to a lower carbohydrate diet; it's just the most publicized. It's possible to be low (or lower) carb while being vegetarian, but meals tend to be based around soy and/or eggs (depends on the type of vegetarian). Since dietary cholesterol has very little effect on blood cholesterol (your body makes cholesterol more easily than it absorbs it), egg consumption is fine.

Furthermore, while Atkins may capitalize on N. Americans' preference for convenience foods by marketing their own line of products, for those of us who know how to cook and have some time to do so, it's fairly easy to cook meals without a lot of empty carbs. However, many N. Americans have little time to cook, hence the prevalence of convenience foods. all of which are expensive.

Is Atkins or any low-carb diet for everyone? Absolutely not! Each individual's metabolism is unique and will vary with age, activity, and genetic factors.

Before you launch on a diatribe, it's best to know what you're talking about.


--ceolstan

[Artega]

I am aware of what the papers and reports say. Apparently, my lame attempt at humor wasn't understood.

[Malakar]

Low carb is just an empty phrase now anyway.

Indeed it is, I've even seen "Low carb bread," lol.

Anyway, this is my understanding of how weight works. Everyone has their own natural metabolism, and their own natural "hunger rate". Your hunger rate cannot be changed except apparently by going through the stomach stapling surgery, but your metabolic rate can be increased by increasing muscle mass. Weight training is the best way to stimulate muscle growth, but in order for it to be successful you must feed your body with enough protein necessary to create muscle tissue. Note that during weight training you are actually breaking down muscle tissue to stimulate growth; the actual growth occurs during subsequent rest.

As others have stated, carbs work as energy, and are stored in fats when they aren't used. Most fat people have a high natural hunger rate, with little muscle mass or exercise, and thus take in much more carbs than they need. I guess the Atkin's diet kind of tricks your stomach into thinking you ate a lot by filling it with protein, while depriving your body of carbs to force it to use up its reserves. If you exercise during the diet, the protein serves a dual purpose of building muscle as well, which will help burn more carbs.

I would only consider something like the Atkin's diet for women, because I doubt most women want to be bulky with muscle. For men, it's far better to replace the fat with muscle. In fact, it tends to be easier for fat guys to build muscle than skinny guys, because their high natural hunger rate tends to make them take in enough food to build muscle quickly. Skinny guys generally have to pay more attention to their eating habits and force themselves to eat when they're not hungry but can eat.

Another thing people tend to overlook is that a few pounds is both a lot of weight and not a lot at the same time. Two pounds is a lot of weight to gain/lose in one day, but at the same time is it not much to be immediately concerned about on the scale. Your body weight fluctuates slightly based on when you eat, drink, have bowel movements, and urinate. Thus 2 pounds could simply be a fluctuation and is thus not much to be concerned about on a daily basis, and yet, a daily loss/gain of 2 pounds is a lot. So you should look at average gains/losses over a period of time, and remember that 2 pounds per day is a lot.

[ceolstan]

In fact, the Atkins diet, as well as other low carb diets, works best for those whose metabolisms are very sensitive to carbohydrates, which can include both men and women. No diet can be a magic bullet for everyone.

Insofar as women's protein consumption leading to bulky muscles at the gym, well, LOL!!! Muscle mass is determined by male hormones. Women just don't make those, at least, not the vast majority of women. As a result, women can lift a lot of weight at the gym, eat loads of protein, and never get the kind of muscle that men get--not unless those women are taking steroids! Trust me, I've seen women powerlifters who are incredibly feminine-looking outside of the gym, yet in the gym can deadlift and squat two to three times their body weight and bench press well over their body weight. For a good site on women and weight training, see here.

I agree that "low carb" is a bit of a misnomer. :) And, truly, if you want to try one of the low-carb diets, go for it. Just be aware that the idea is eventually to learn how many carbs are right for you own metabolism. If you don't need to worry about carbs, then don't worry about them.

--ceolstan

[Malakar]

Muscle mass is determined by male hormones. Women just don't make those, at least, not the vast majority of women.

Have you ever seen female body builders? You can see them in female body building competitions. That is what I meant by bulky, not the same as men's bulky, but still more bulky than most women want to be.

[Artega]

Actually, I believe the idea behind "low-carb bread" is multi-grain. Since Atkins (or the marketing execs; I don't know which) operates on the idea of "net carbs" (total carbohydrates minus dietary fiber), and multi-grain bread has a pretty decent amount of fiber, the result is bread with a lower-than-normal "net carb" total. I've tried the stuff, and it IS pretty tasty, but not tasty enough for me to be willing to shell out $5 for a 16-slice loaf. I'll stick to normal wheat bread ^_^

[Nystul]

You know, just a few years back when Cheerios was the big health fad, multigrain bread might have been labeled "high in dietary fiber". It would still be a fad, but at least it would make an iota of sense. The problem is that carbohydrate already has a pretty specific definition (an intuitive one, even!), and giving words new meanings which contradict the ones they already have only leads to confusion. Certainly people who are looking at this diet without consulting a doctor or doing thorough research may not have an understanding of what it really involves (and thus may end up putting themselves on a dangerous diet), and certainly people who look at low carb bread will not have any clue what that actually means.

I just hope Shell doesn't start selling low carb gasoline :)

[kandrathe]

How many of them take steriods?

[[wcip]Angel]

Read up ^&nbsp; :lol:

But isn't there a way of doing crunches at home, without the $2.000 equipment?

[WarLocke]

Threaded view is your friend.

--Pete

I'd use it if I could load the whole thread in one screen (like the old N54 board did). :(

Munkay:
This is not a comment directed at you Warlocke, but rather a message directed to everyone.

Be kind to your tall skinny feathered friends.

Eh, if DeeBye hangs out over at SA, he can surely take anything I sling his way! :blink:

[DeeBye]

Eh, if DeeBye hangs out over at SA, he can surely take anything I sling his way!&nbsp; :blink:

[Munkay]

Angel,Jun 1 2004, 05:36 AM]
But isn't there a way of doing crunches at home, without the $2.000 equipment?

The original question was whats the difference between a crunch and a sit up, hence the "read up comment" :)

But as far as ways to do crunches in your house, there is always the tried and true 'lay on your back' method. I should have linked here, instead of to direct exercises. Here is a barrage of different types to work out those damn rectus abdominis muscles, some require equipment, others don't.

The reason I linked to exercises that general need a gym membership to do, was in case you were looking to bulk out your stomach a bit, get larger muscles in the 'six pack.' I'm a prescriber to the idea of 'full body cardio to burn fat' (one or a combination of: running, swiming, biking, rowing, etc) and weight training, rather than hundreds of sit ups to tone the stomach. But regular crunches still work well too :P .

Hope the link helps a bit more,

-Munk

[[wcip]Angel]

Thanks for the link.

Apparently what they call a "crunch", I call a "sit-up".

To me; this is a sit-up the way it's suppose to be done:


This is the damaging sit-up:


That's what I learned in gym class 3-4 years ago.

-----

As for the gym thing, if I had my own personal gym, I would certainly make good use of it but
i) I'm too self-conscious. I can't exercise in front of other people in a public gym
ii) I'm not comfortable with that whole millieu