Check this comic for a carbs vs. protein punchline:

http://sluggy.com/daily.php?date=040215

They recommend about an hour of movement every other day and I'll be goddamned if I'm gonna do any more than that.

I cut calories and do not exercise more and I lose weight.

When they talk about how many miles you have to walk to burn off a bowl of ice cream, you know you only have to drop the ice cream, you don't have to walk as well.

Correlation does not prove causation, blah blah.... But anyway, a high protein diet raises blood pH - is that what causes kidney damage (would make sense)? If so, wouldn't that be neutralized by all the cheese and green vegetable (fat/calcium) consumption?

They recommend about an hour of movement every other day and I'll be goddamned if I'm gonna do any more than that.

They recommend one drink per day, but since I don't drink everyday I just make up for it on the weekend. :D

Well, if you want to live a long life, calorie restriction is the proven method which works. But who wants to eat 1200 calories a day?

Naa, people have been getting fat for years too.

HFCS and sucrose aren't much different. And in any case, ADM would have anyone who suggested they were a problem killed.

Well, actually, people -- usually nutritionists with naturally low appetites -- suggest this all the time. But reducing portion size and increasing activity is quite difficult. You try it, and you're hungry all the time -- this is from personal experience. Which is the big allure of Atkins -- all those fats tend to satisfy your hunger.

I think part of the problem with Atkins is the extremist mentality that it seems to promote. Like "If I cut out this piece of bread I can have steak for lunch and dinner" kind of thing. How is a piece of bread really making much of an impact? And why would you want to eat meat constantly? What about a nice peanut butter sandwich, or some broccoli with cheese? Sure, if you replace that bread with a big piece of chocolate cake, then there's a problem, but it seems like people either go crazy with what they eat or restrict themselves to the point that they are miserable. Why not gradually work your way down from the portions you are use to to more reasonable sizes and more often during the day? Isn't there some study somewhere that says if you eat several small meals it helps metabolism?

Also, I have to disagree with Atkins on carbs in general. We have high glycemic carbs and low glycemic carbs. Lower ones, like green beans, brown rice, whole wheat bread are going to take longer to metabolize, so your body sort of has more time to burn them off. The higher ones, like mashed potatoes, chocolate cake, orange juice go fast, so unless you are exercising after you consume these, they have nowhere to go but to your fat cells. This was what I gathered from a nutritionist I talked to recently. I can't see why we would want to restrict the low glycemic carbs...they seem to be the things people always tell us are good for us, anyway. Wouldn't it be more sensible to stop trying to make ourselves eat steaks and cheese with no bread and just eat naturally, cutting back on refined sugar products, like soda and cookies? Sure, it would take longer to lose weight, but it does happen, even if you don't increase your activity.

Sorry to rant. All this Atkins stuff doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Because IME it doesn't work. If you try to work your way down, your body will betray you by burning fewer calories (and of course complaining with hunger) and not losing any weight. I started cutting out snacks, desserts, etc in college and managed to lose absolutely nothing. Cutting portion sizes in half and skipping meals worked a lot better.

The starches in brown rice and whole wheat are no different than those in white rice and white bread. And the metabolic path from starch to fat is nearly as efficient as that from sugar to fat, it just takes slightly longer. Calories in - Calories out = weight gain, regardless of the source.

Again, Calories in - Calories out = weight gain, regardless of the source. Doesn't matter whether it's natural or not.

Generally its a matter of genetics and what works for you. I had great success with a low-carb plan because it stablized my blood sugar levels. When my blood sugar fluctuated, I would get the hungry horrors and overeat. I'm on my first week of induction and I feel much better.

Not every weight loss plan is ment for your body type. You have to research and experiment.

Yes, yes, I agree. I stated that incorrectly. I meant that eating all meats and cheeses feels unnatural (to me, at least). It feels more natural to eat mostly the same stuff I always did, but less of it. You are right, it doesn't matter what the calories are, they are still calories, whether they are from bread, soda, or steak. The difference between them would be how quickly those calories are processed in your body. In my personal experience, I found that if I cut out high sugar foods like soda and cake, it was easier to control my hunger with the things I did eat because my blood sugar didn't drop so drastically. It felt more natural for me. I didn't cut out carbs, but I cut back on sugar.

Ah, this was not my experience. I suppose everyone's body works differently and I sort of overgeneralized based on my own experience. I apologize.

The differences between whole wheat and white aren't in calorie amounts. They are different in how fast they break down into sugars. I don't think it makes a HUGE difference whether you eat white or wheat bread, but it makes some difference because white bread is further processed, therefore will not take as long to break down into sugar. Now, the difference between wheat bread and chocolate cake would be more substancial, because the cake would have a higher concentration of pure sugar. The idea is, that the slower it takes to turn to fat, the better, because it is easier to burn off that energy before it is completely processed even if burning off just means existing.

I can relate to that. I go through the same thing if I eat something sweet.

White and wheat breads contain the same starches, they break down at the same rate. Changing wheat into white is a physical process, not a chemical one. The extra fiber in wheat slows digestion, but by an insignificant amount -- wheat bread has a GI about 2-3 points (on an open-ended scale, but with glucose being 100 and not much above it) below white bread.

BTW, the glycemic indices of HFCS and sucrose (cane/beet sugar) are similar also.

One piece of white bread isn't going to destroy your Atkins dieting. But it will if you cheat a little bit here, then a little bit there, pretty soon your diet is no diet anymore.

And you seem to think Atkins is a pure meat diet. That seems to be a common misconception. You are supposed to eat a great deal of veggies, particularly green ones. Romaine, string beans, peppers, cucumbers, and tomatos, celery, and more that I can't think of right now. Oh, and broccoli with cheese sounds like a great Atkins dish. I would add some tunafish to the side of that, and make it a meal!

The majority of the carbs you get in Atkins should come from veggies, (and maybe nuts and cheese)



Also, I have to disagree with Atkins on carbs in general. We have high glycemic carbs and low glycemic carbs. Lower ones, like green beans, brown rice, whole wheat bread are going to take longer to metabolize, so your body sort of has more time to burn them off. The higher ones, like mashed potatoes, chocolate cake, orange juice go fast, so unless you are exercising after you consume these, they have nowhere to go but to your fat cells. This was what I gathered from a nutritionist I talked to recently. I can't see why we would want to restrict the low glycemic carbs...they seem to be the things people always tell us are good for us, anyway.


Personally, I agree with you on this, and I think it is more of a Sugarbusters point of view than Atkins. I just stick with Atkins because I find that limiting all carbs makes me less hungry.



Wouldn't it be more sensible to stop trying to make ourselves eat steaks and cheese with no bread and just eat naturally, cutting back on refined sugar products, like soda and cookies? Sure, it would take longer to lose weight, but it does happen, even if you don't increase your activity.


That's the diet I see myself going to when I lose the weight I want. Right now, I'm too impatient and I like the results very low carb dieting produces.



Sorry to rant. All this Atkins stuff doesn't make a lot of sense to me. [/quote]

That all right, Almost all Atkins cult members go through that before the indoctrination kicks in.

Good to know. :)

I guess it all boils down to what works best for the individual. for me, atkins is too much of a drastic change to really stick to it. But, my method of cutting back and dropping sugar has been really successful, albeit slow. I have known lots of people, though, who were successful with Atkins.

Whatever you do, it should be a change in your behavior that is lasting, or why bother at all? The goal should be maintainable, lasting, improved health not just weightloss. Live as well and long as possible.

For me, veggies and activity are the keys.

Women who lose weight with out changing levels of activity, or flux up and down a lot, lose not just fat, but bone mass. Youre lighter, and also working towards being shorter and more breakable. Bad.

Good site for women's health: strongwomen.com