BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Atkins diet

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
pomegranate
16:07 / 07.05.03
cholister, maybe you should look into going macrobiotic. they are vegans who don't eat anything processed. you don't necc. have to be as hardcore about it as they are--they're anti-microwave, anti-tomatoes, anti-eating food out of season in yr climate.

personally, i'm now looking into the paleo diet, wherein you eat as though it's the paleolithic era. it makes sense since that's what we evolved in. basically, it's nothing processed like breads or cereals, and no dairy besides eggs. i dunno though, i'm not veg but i get a *lot* of my protein from cheese, cos it's easier to eat on the go. (i'm NOT into beef jerky.) maybe i'll switch to non-sugar peanut butter, which is technically not paleo, but they *did* have peanuts, right?
 
 
Linus Dunce
16:34 / 07.05.03
Athletes eat little else but carbohydrates, but they're not fat. Isn't exercise the key? And isn't our natural state to wander around doing physical stuff, burning off fat? Is the Atkins diet really a return to nature or more western consumerism?

Mantis -- cereals are not necessarily processed, flour is nothing more than dried wheat or corn that has been bashed with a blunt object and eggs are not dairy. They come from chickens. Mostly. But never cows.
 
 
gingerbop
20:52 / 07.05.03
Yes, running free, in the hills- i think id rather go for that option than cutting out the WHOLE of my diet, other than the cheese in the roll i have at lunch, and perhaps a bit of cheese in the evening, without the biscuits. Crazy.
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
13:53 / 08.05.03
I'm telling you, you need to check out Sugarbusters. There is some interesting data that shows obesity rose sharply after the invention of refined sugar. I like the idea of going back to the roots of civilization diet-wise. Cutting out refined foods (like white bread, sugar, white pasta, instant-anything, cheese whiz, etc.) is a big step in that direction. If you eat lean meats, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and pure water, you'll do your body a huge favor, and may lose weight in the process.
 
 
pomegranate
14:32 / 08.05.03
ignatius, if you've never had cow eggs, yr totally missing out.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
18:49 / 08.05.03
What Piglet said. Roughly that diet has done wonders for me--although, possibly not as much as going from "no exercise" to "a little exercise". The combination of cutting out soda (high fructose corn syrup is the fucking devil) and losing my car dropped my weight by a good 10 or 15 pounds.

And I second the notion of "hardcore" not being a necessity. I saw an ad campaign suggesting, Be a vegetarian one or two days a week. I think that the hardcore religious approach to vegetarianism, veganism, raw foodism, or whatever, is well and good, but these things don't have to be black and white. I'm a "grocery store vegan" most of the time: I never cook meat, I typically avoid dairy and eggs in my home, but I don't demand food listings at restaurants, and once in a great while I'll even eat a bird. Possibly not as healthy as a total hardcore diet, but it's not like I'm eating lard from a tub.
 
 
pomegranate
19:12 / 08.05.03
everything in moderation. (even moderation?)
tommy, yr diet sounds...perfect.
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:16 / 08.05.03
You see? Tommy has lost about a stone just living normally to his tastes and taking a walk now and again, and he describes his lifestyle as not as healthy as a proper, store-bought diet.

WHAT HAS THAT BASTARD ATKINS DONE TO YOU POOR PEOPLE?
 
 
Salamander
00:35 / 09.05.03
eh, thats too bad to hear grant, because if I rmember my microbio right the bacteria that metabolize sugar in our mouths also can't metabolize that form of sugar, dentists would loose alot of biz...
 
 
Outlaw
21:17 / 10.05.03
The Atkins diet is one of the best I have seen. I have several freinds who have been on it for at least two years and all have experienced amazing weight loss and increases in energy levels. I tried the diet but cannot stay on it because I have a family history of Poly-Cystic Kidneys and I need to lower my protein levels. However while I did the induction diet and a few months of the maintinence diet I had better energy and lost what little weight I could lose. I had always thought the pot belly was from fat, it turns out it's my X3 sized kidneys pushing my organs out of shape.

I had my cholesterol tested after a month of the diet and the levels were dropping from the rather high levels I had been tested at before the diet. I know others who have tested their cholesterol levels after many months on the diet and they too have had their levels improve dramaticly. Other health indicatiors are improved as well, blood pressure, etc...

The secret to the diet is in its concept of placing the body into its winter mode. For most of us light skinned folk whose ancestors evolved in more northern climes were from areas where you had seasonal variations in the food supply, for half the year they had limited access to carbohydrate rich foods. Thus protein and fat rich foods (nuts, hunting, etc) were the norm for that time of year, and their bodies shifted cycle to adapt and survive. The calorie rich carbos were eaten in the spring and summer while available and turned into survival fat for the lean time to come. When the level of carbohydrate intake decreased the body would go into a fat burning mode (ketosis). If you drasticly cut the volume of food eaten, as most conventional diets require, your body thinks there is a famine and it goes into a special starvation mode, which is why most diets dont work very well or for very long.

Once we became "civilized" we had access to rich carbohydrates year round, however our bodies were still adapted for the winter/summer cycle. While we were working our butts off as an agrarian culture we burned those calories off, but now that we are an industrialized culture we dont get the same level of exercise and our bodies stay in the summer "store up fat for the winter" cycle and we get fat on rich, refined carbos.

So, your choices to lose weight, as they always have been, is intake less calories or ouput more activity. The Atkins diet doesn't avoid this cycle in some magic way, it simply limits the intake of calorie rich carbos and takes advantage of a natural body cycle to burn off the existing fat reserves the body has. Of course you still need to exercise, Dr. Atkins says that in his books, and you must take vitamin supliments in the induction and weight loss phase. Of course once you get into the maintinence phase you can eat something like 100 grams of carbos each day, thats 3 sodas, or a couple peices of fruit, or even a samwich or two depending on the bread.

So the question is, which is more logical, working within the physiological methods the body uses for survival, or starve yourself?

Outlaw
 
 
Linus Dunce
01:27 / 11.05.03
Outlaw -- Are you some kind of viral marketing monkey? That's quite a passionate defence of Atkins.

So, your choices to lose weight, as they always have been, is intake less calories or ouput more activity.

Actually, this is a lie. Because it's not "or" at all.
 
 
Linus Dunce
01:41 / 11.05.03
Oh yeah --

The calorie rich carbos were eaten in the spring and summer while available and turned into survival fat

Carbohydrates generally come from cereals, fruit and such, which aren't ready to eat until the autumn.

There is NO WAY in which carbohydrates can be turned into fat by a human being.
 
 
Outlaw
02:18 / 11.05.03
> Carbohydrates generally come from cereals, fruit and such, which aren't ready to eat until the autumn.

Carbohydrates come from fruits which are ripe from spring to summer, cereals ripen depending on latitude from late summer to fall, carbo rich veggies are around late spring, summer and fall. The winter cycle is when few are available.

> There is NO WAY in which carbohydrates can be turned into fat by a human being.

As for humans not turning carbos into fat, I wonder where you picked this idea up. If that were the case then we could eat as much carbos as we want and not gain weight. However it seems most of us humans can convert carbos into fat with an amazing efficiency which is the problem. IF there is a study that has shown this carbos not becoming fat theory, please show it to me, I would love to eat all the carbo loaded crap I could without fear of gaining weight.

Edited next morning....

There are some carbo's that the human body does not break down. For some reason dietary fiber is in the carbohydrate category, and those are not digestable nor do they affect insulin production or ketosis. There are some other carbohydrates that are digetable but are "Atkins friendly" but I dont understand the distinction.

> Are you some kind of viral marketing monkey? That's quite a passionate defence of Atkins.

It worked for me, it has worked for others I know, and it continues to work for many people. It is not the perfect diet for everyone, and I admitted that, I cannot go on it for long periods of time due to my kidney problem. I dont like to see people trash an idea that works. I would ask why you are so opposed to Atkins? Are you a marketer for the American Carbohydrate Council?

> > So, your choices to lose weight, as they always have been, is intake less calories or ouput more activity.

> Actually, this is a lie. Because it's not "or" at all.

Sorry, the "Or" should have been an "And/Or", my mistake.

Outlaw
 
 
gingerbop
17:17 / 11.05.03
i DO believe that it works... i just question the healthiness of cutting out foods normally considered healthy. Cutting down, perhaps- but cutting out? i just find that a bit extreme.
 
 
Outlaw
18:49 / 11.05.03
Perhaps we need to look into what you think the diet is telling you to cut out. Many people think the Atkins diet is nothing but meat. Some think its meat and some veggies. Others think its nothing but red meat and cheese. Now, I am going from memory here, since I gave my Atkins Diet books to a couple who are using it now, but the list of verboten items is pretty simple.

If eating it will put you over the level of carbos allowed per day dont eat it.

There we go.

Now what is the level? At first 20 grams per day. Once your body enters ketosis you can start ramping up the carbos per day until you hit the maintince level (when you are at your target weight and are ready to stay there) you can have from 100 to 120 grams per day. If you want all the carbos in one shot, go for it. If you want to use them up over the day, go for it.

100 grams of carbos is a pretty sizable amount when you think about it. I think it's something like 7 tablespoons of sugar. A bowl of berries, a couple apples or oranges, things like that are fine once you are at your target weight. Its during the weight loss period that you limit your intake, just like in any other diet.

What I don't understand is how people can think cutting out fats and oils is healthy, but cutting out sugar isn't. Look at your vitamins sometime, most are oil based. Faty Acids are a vital component of brain development, homeopathic essential oils are just that, oils. Next time you are in the store look at the nutritional value and caloric levels in olive or peanut oil and in sugar. Compare them and ask yourself, which should I get more of and which should I get less of.

Outlaw
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:13 / 12.05.03
I would ask why you are so opposed to Atkins? Are you a marketer for the American Carbohydrate Council?

There is no such thing as far as I know.

I'm pretty much opposed to all diets except for the clinically obese or diabetic. I just don't get why people think they're a good idea -- to me it all just sounds like quack medicine. They all work a little bit because essentially the dieter ... eats less. But beyond that, it's just made-up science. Like the concept of "cellulite."

And living with someone with low-blood-sugar mood swings verging on psychosis is no fun. For either party.
 
 
Outlaw
00:59 / 13.05.03
Ignatius, I would ask you what is "clinicly obese"? There is such a thing as optimal weight for a person and one can be "overweight" without being "obese". For those who want to lose weight, but have found starvation diets to fail for them, the Atkins diet is a good alternative. Not the only one, sugar busters seems to be logical idea as well.

There are other special diets that work for people with other conditions. I for instance need to reduce my protein intake to put less stress on my kidneys. That is not made up science, that is a practical idea, with all the science we have backing up how the kidneys process the blood.

The Atkins diet is scientific as well. It works and works well for people who have failed on other diet plans. The Atkins diet works because you eat less calorie rich foods, but the overall mass eaten remains the same, thus making you feel full, but not as many calories that turn into fat.

As for the low blood sugar mood swings person, the Atkins diet has been shown to be good for certain types of blood sugar problems. Check out his site and see what they have to say. I forget which types of problem are good with the diet and which are bad.

You can continue to disbeleive the empirical evidence of the successes of those who follow the plan. You can continue to try and discredit the diet. You can continue to accuse me of working for the Atkins center. But that will not change the facts that studies have shown it to be a prectical and functional diet that people lose weight and get healthy on.

Outlaw
 
 
gingerbop
16:39 / 13.05.03
*munches away on chocolate buttons*
 
 
Linus Dunce
18:28 / 13.05.03
Gingerbop -- Chocolate buttons? For amateurs. Got me a big bar of Dairy Milk right here.

Outlaw -- I don't really believe you work for Atkins. And your diet for your kidneys is, presuming it has been devised by a qualified and respected doctor (respected by other doctors that is) rather than some self-publicising, money-grabbing hack, is scientific and a good thing.

Atkins' diet will cause some weight loss. I'll not argue with that. But any calorie-limiting diet will cause some weight loss. Atkins is just the latest in a long tradition of snake-oil sellers.

Coincidentally, I found this today. It's titled, "Want to Slim? Then Eat Fat!" It's from 1958 -- 45 years ago. Download and check it out.
 
 
Outlaw
21:09 / 13.05.03
Now I was all with you until that last line. Snake Oil infers that it is a placebo and does nothing. Numerous doctors who have started off wanting to prove it is a horrible idea have come around and say it works. There are many who have used it to great success and are living healthy, happy lives. I have a freind who lost 20 lbs after a month or two on the diet. Thats a bit more than "some wight loss", another freind has gone from balloon shaped to very atractively shaped on the diet. I dont ask her how much she lost, thats tacky.

Now I will agree with you on those celebrety diets, they are a joke, and not a funny one. Such ideas are dangerous to young women obsesed with their weight. Starvation regimins will do just that, starve you. Those diets are snake oil.

Outlaw
 
 
gingerbop
13:32 / 14.05.03
Snake-oil...as in oil from snakes? eeew.
 
 
pomegranate
15:34 / 14.05.03
i think the only way i could give up carbs is if i was hypnotized to do so. serious.
 
 
Linus Dunce
23:17 / 14.05.03
Hypnotised by the snakes ...

Snake-oil was a vernacular, nineteenth-century name for the stuff we now pump out of the ground to make petrol etc. It was sometimes sold as a medicine. Many people swore by it. Go figure.
 
 
Outlaw
02:37 / 15.05.03
Cutting the carbos is tough. The damned things are in everything processed. You have to eat, as one guy said, the outer edges of the gorcery store. The produce, dairy and meat sections. Most everything processed is in the aisles and thus over laoded with carbos, especialy the empty carbos like white sugar, bleached flour and corn starch.

Outlaw
 
 
gingerbop
13:02 / 18.05.03
Why does bleaching flour make it's empty carbs? hmmm. Thats so gross that we eat bleached flour anyway.
Some Toilet-Duck pancakes, anyone?
 
 
Outlaw
13:30 / 18.05.03
Flour is one of those weird things of history.

At first flour was simply grains that had been beaten to death. The whole deal was in it, thus it was "whole grain" and it contained the carbo rich white and the nutrient rich germ. As time went on, and people became even more stupid, they decided that "white" was pure and good, so white bread, with wheet flour without the germ, was better. Of course, this was bullcrap.

Bleaching flour is an industrial method used to hasten the ageing proceess. Aged white flour has better flavor and baking qualitites than freshly ground white flour. You dont bleach or age whole wheet flour bacuase it has a shorter lifespan. Since it contains more nutrients it tends to rot faster than white flour.

Of course, to offset the miserable nutritional quality of white flour it tends to get "enriched" which means grind a few multivitamins in with the flour. Of course, the effectiveness of that is questionable. You can list "nutrients" even if they are not in a digestable form, so the cheep bastards are likely to use minerals in their non-absorbable form.

So this is why white flour is basicly an "empty carbo" that nutritionaly is close to white sugar.

Outlaw
 
 
gingerbop
21:37 / 18.05.03
Good lord. People are dumb. Almost makes me wanna not eat white wheaty crap, coz its just that stupid. Wait a minute- that would put me on... the atkins diet. AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!! No, i cant carry any kinda argument on for very long without being swayed.
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:56 / 18.05.03
What is an empty carbo? And what, I guess, is a full carbo?

I'm not looking for a good/evil definition. Carbohydrates are made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. That's all. As I understand it, some get burned up quicker than others, but what is the empty thing about?
 
 
Outlaw
02:37 / 19.05.03
Sorry about that, I was tossing a term around that realy doesnt have an intuitive definition.

An "empty carbohydrate" is an "empty calorie". An empty calorie is any calorie that exists without any other nutritional reason to exist. For instance a soda is filled with empty calories. The soda has 30 some odd grams of sugar (carbos) in it, and no vitamines or minerals to make the drinking of it a halthy experience. A fruit such as an apple will have non-empty calories/carbos as the apple has pleanty of healthy vitamines and minerals in it.

A potato chip is a good example of an empty calorie too, that is one that has uselss fats and calories and no other nutrition. They tend to be deep fried in the cheepest oils that bring nothing to the party, and what little value the potato tends to have are in the skin layer and those are peeled of. Finaly the vitamin C that potatoes have is most often trashed by contact with so much boiling oil.

The reason to make a value judgement on the source of calories is because to turn a sugar or a fat into useable energy the body must have certain enzymes which are made from the nutrients we get from foods. If you eat a peice of fruit, it contains what is needed to turn the sugars into useable energy. If you drink a soda, to use the sugar (which the body will do regardless of imediate need) the body will need to draw on reserves of nutrients to make the conversion. Thus putting you in a net loss of nutrients, which must be replaced in some other way.

Outlaw
 
 
Outlaw
02:43 / 19.05.03
BTW Gingerbop, if you cut the bleached white flour, white sugar and cornstarch from your diet and stuck with "whole foods" (foods which have not been processed, pre-cooked or pre-mixed) you would not be on the Atkins diet, however you would be eating much healthier and you would notice improved energy levels and better overall health.

Now if you added to that a limitation on all foods that contained carbohydrates to at first 20 grams per day and slowly brought that level to 100 grams per day after you reached your ideal weight, then you would be on the Atkins diet.

Somewhere between that is the Sugarbusters diet, a very good idea as well.

Outlaw
 
 
Thjatsi
06:02 / 19.05.03
Congratulations Barbelith, you've stumbled onto one of the fundamental laws of the universe.

Everyone thinks they have a Ph.D. in nutrition.
 
 
Outlaw
14:29 / 19.05.03
Not just in Nutrition, but engineering, psychology, history, chemistry, bio-chemistry , nuclear physics...

Thats the joy of the internet. Who needs a degree? All you need is a good search engine and a high speed conection.

Outlaw
 
 
Linus Dunce
19:49 / 19.05.03
Don't be sucking up too many of those empty bytes, though. :-)
 
 
penitentvandal
10:54 / 27.05.03
Well, being as how I'm just a little bit (well, alright, a tad; okay, quite a lot) overweight myself, I have been thinking of taking this up. A few questions however:

1) Where the fuck do you get the recommended nutritional supplements from, if you live in the UK? I really don't fancy paying about £50 (incl shipping fees) for 180 pills ordered from the Atkins lair in America, thank you very much. And I can't really be arsed buying umpteen different mix 'n' match supplements at my local H&B's, either. Is there a way of getting what is essentially the basic #3 supplement thing in the UK, or not? Hmmm.

2) Can anyone recommend a better alternative? I've been really busy over the past few months and have put weight on due to that - not having time to go to the gym, overdoing it on the social front, etc. I s'pose it's possible that I could solve the problem by hitting the gym big-style for the next few months, but I can't see myself keeping that up easily when I start my first teaching job in September. Are there any suggestions as to how to deal with that? Do we have any actually qualified dietiticians/fitness people on the board? What about this paleo diet? I think that sounds quite cool, but what does it involve?

3) Not really a question at all, just an observation - I always thought, from reading the Atkins book, that he looked kinda like Marvin Monroe from the Simpsons. And, given this detail of his 'portliness', I may have been right...
 
 
Mr Messy
11:32 / 27.05.03
I saw an interesting documentary on the BBC a few years back, which was investigating obesity. The idea was to see if there is any evidence to support a genetic basis for obesity.

I can't remember a great many details, although the 'I have a low metabolism' line was pooh-poohed.

What I do remember was some stuff about identical twins. The investigators looked for twins who had been raised in very different circumstances, and had different diets. They found that any difference in weight due to diet was not significant. Diet just didn't have much
of an impact in the longterm. The only factor that was implicated in maintained weight difference was exercise. A twin who exercised regularly - i.e. burned more calories than s/he took in, was thinner.

This always struck me as being majorly significant, and the fact that its not been trumpeted from the heavens is that most people don't want to exercise, they want an easier alternative. And diets are big business.

I eat carbs all the time - love pasta, rice, bread. I also run five times a week. I may come over all evangelical in a minute and try to convert you all. So I'll try and curb the impulse, but not before saying running is the best- wonderful head space.

Sorry I can't give you more details on the source of this info.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply