Atkins works - and boy am I happy!

hcass

I was always afraid to do Atkins diet. Eating meat and cheese and eggs and still losing weight seemed impossible to me. And surely all that fat had to be bad, clogging up your arteries with cholestrol and gathering around your heart, slowly helping it to give in.

Anyway, after years of WW meetings, and I have to say I did lose a lot of weight at weight watchers, i decided to try something completely different. I started Atkins just a week and a day ago. A the beginning it was really difficult, I couldn't get my head around all the fatty meat, heavy cheeses and dozens of eggs I was expected to consume. But after day three I really began to enjoy gorging on all the luxurious foods that were made taboo by WW and other low-fat diets. I still wasn't convinced though, a little niggle in the back of my head was telling me that I was probably putting weight on. Now, at 5feet 7 and 10 stone 9 lbs i am not exactly fat. But I have always wanted to get down to at least nine and a half stone and increase my fitness and decrease my fat percentage. WW brought me so far and I was hoping that Atkins would bring me that little bit further.

So when I checked the scales last night and I weighed 10 stone 3.5 lbs I couldn't believe it - 5.5 in one week! GONE! And I never felt hungry or like I was losing out. I'm so happy, delighted in fact.

I have one issue though - I have one more week of induction left and now I am into my second week I am starting to get bored with just eating the foods on the induction list. I could murder an apple or a handful of nuts but they are not allowed til next week. And even then I am only allowed to add 5 grammes of carbs EACH week until I have lost enough weight and know how many carbs I can have each day to maintain my healthy weight. The problem is - I don't think I can wait that long to start eating a piece of fruit here and there, or a few more veggies on my plate. I can last the induction phase but reckon next week that I will be adding more than 5 grammes of carbs per week. Is this a bad idea?

El_Dangeroso

Nah, I'd go for it, I hate counting anyway so that 'extra 5g a week' seems a little obsessive and unless your obese, I would skip to what IPDers refer to as 'Phase 2' which is induction + fruit + occasional porridge or potato + dark chocolate. Expect to regain about 3lb in glycogen as you increase carbs, don't worry, this is not fat. Watch out for sudden bloat from any food you reintroduce and make sure you still get your protein in.

gerrycollins

considering you current weight there is no need for you to do induction. you need to start at OWL(ongoing weight loss) where you add in 5g carbs per day and if you still losing massive amounts of weight add another 5g next week

you need to get to a carb level where you are losing a pound or two a week. you will get to a carb level where you will lose no weight so subtract 5g of carbs and so on and so on

Im doing it too but you still have to watch your portion sizes of you protien meat but im back enjoying garlic butter fried chicken fillets but i have loads to lose however after week three tomorrow im down about 18lbs.

and that you are on a high protien diet you will tone up so weight loss may fluctate with you having so little to lose because dont forget muscle weighs more than fat.

Ice.

Atkins died weighing 258lbs which is obese for a man of his height. He had a heart attack, fell over and died. Great advertisement for his diet don't you think? And still people buy into the high-fat carb-phobic mindset at the expense of their health.

brianthebard

Ice. wrote: »

Atkins died weighing 258lbs which is obese for a man of his height. He had a heart attack, fell over and died. Great advertisement for his diet don't you think? And still people buy into the high-fat carb-phobic mindset at the expense of their health.

He slipped on ice. This is classic peta nonsense tbh.

ApeXaviour

Indeed, check your sources. Prior to the his fall and coma he was 196lbs. His death weight was caused by fluid retention.

Ice.

brianthebard wrote: »

He slipped on ice.

After suffering a heart attack. His own physician said so. He had a history of myocardial infarction.

ApeXaviour

Ice. wrote: »

After suffering a heart attack. His own physician said so. He had a history of myocardial infarction.

A year previously he had one. If you're quoting his own physician don't leave out the part where it was obviously due to a "heart infection he'd had for a few years", and was "no way related to diet".

Ice.

ApeXaviour wrote: »

and was "no way related to diet".

This part was self reported by Atkins himself. Hardly unbiased. Also there was no post-mortem performed at request of the family. If they had nothing to hide.....

El_Dangeroso

You don't post here much do you Ice?

The health of a high-fat low carbohydrate approach is well documented in various scientific trials. In fact, it consistently does better than low-fat or Mediterranean diets in blood sugar, cholesterol and weight loss:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/jama;297/9/969
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681

Heresay about someone's health (of which you have no solid evidence whatsoever) doesn't really fly around here.

Low carb diets aren't for everyone, but they are perfectly safe and healthy, if you want to dispute that you'll have to come up with some pretty compelling evidence.

rocky

Was Atkins following the Atkins diet?

ApeXaviour

wikipedia wrote:

Dr. Clyde Yancy, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the American Heart Association's national board of directors, said: "Despite the obvious irony, I believe there is a total disconnect between the cardiac arrest and the health approach he (Atkins) popularizes."

Also there was no post-mortem performed at request of the family. If they had nothing to hide.....

Innuendo, nothing more. A family might have many reasons to make such a choice.

hcass

Ice. wrote: »

Atkins died weighing 258lbs which is obese for a man of his height. He had a heart attack, fell over and died. Great advertisement for his diet don't you think? And still people buy into the high-fat carb-phobic mindset at the expense of their health.

I've heard all the stories and believed them too. Then i read the book and researched it myself and I can see the results on the scales and feel the results too. I feel great, used to have terrible gas - gone, used to go to the toilet a million times a day - stopped, even though drinking just as much water as before. I have more energy, don't feel hungry like I used to and have no cravings.

Thanks everyone for your feedback - think I'll still finish this one week of induction and then introduce the carbs back at a quicker rate than recommended on OWL, thanks.

brianthebard

Ice. wrote: »

This part was self reported by Atkins himself. Hardly unbiased.

After he died????

hcass

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Nah, I'd go for it, I hate counting anyway so that 'extra 5g a week' seems a little obsessive and unless your obese, I would skip to what IPDers refer to as 'Phase 2' which is induction + fruit + occasional porridge or potato + dark chocolate. Expect to regain about 3lb in glycogen as you increase carbs, don't worry, this is not fat. Watch out for sudden bloat from any food you reintroduce and make sure you still get your protein in.

This sounds much more do-able thanks Dangerso

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

Was Atkins following the Atkins diet?

I would think so yeah, he was a right old cantankerous man though and made a few outrageous claims, hence he made lots of enemies and possibly was responsible for the frosty reception a lot of scientific researchers had to the diet.

It is funny because the default diet advised before the low-fat fad (which is only around since the 70's) was to cut down on sweets and starches. Everyone's grandmother knew that's how you lose weight. It was only with the introduction of the food pyramid in the 1970's that people began to eschew fat (especially saturated fat) in favour of carbs, which co-incides nicely with the obesity epidemic and a massive rise in heart disease and diabetes. Could be a co-incidence, but I dunno..

Ice.

rocky wrote: »

Was Atkins following the Atkins diet?

As in most businesses, you eat your own dogfood.

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Innuendo, nothing more. A family might have many reasons to make such a choice.

Sure, but with such potential damage to the brand surely it would have been easier to just do one and stop any rumours in their tracks. Unless.....

brianthebard wrote: »

After he died????

He had admitted so earlier when he was alive.

Ice.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

It was only with the introduction of the food pyramid in the 1970's that people began to eschew fat (especially saturated fat) in favour of carbs, which co-incides nicely with the obesity epidemic and a massive rise in heart disease and diabetes. Could be a co-incidence, but I dunno..

The whole low-fat fad wasn't really low fat. Much like today. Most products contained as much fat if not more fat because the products were diluted with water and then seasoned with salt and sugar to get rid of the diluted taste and thickened up with corn flour or some similar. They were then able to list their products as low fat because water doesn't have a caloric value but it does have a weight, so fat is listed as a percentage of weight instead of a percentage of calories.

ApeXaviour

Ice. wrote: »

Sure, but with such potential damage to the brand surely it would have been easier to just do one and stop any rumours in their tracks. Unless.....

The family are not the brand.

hcass

Ice. wrote: »

As in most businesses, you eat your own dogfood.




Sure, but with such potential damage to the brand surely it would have been easier to just do one and stop any rumours in their tracks. Unless.....




He had admitted so earlier when he was alive.

Dr. Atkins did NOT die of a heart attack - he had one in 2002 but it was due to an ongoing heart infection. He recovered and in 2003 he slipped on some ice and hit his head causing bleeding on the brain. He slipped into a coma and died a few days later.

Get your facts straight if you are going to come on here arguing a point.

El_Dangeroso

Ice. wrote: »

The whole low-fat fad wasn't really low fat. Much like today. Most products contained as much fat if not more fat because the products were diluted with water and then seasoned with salt and sugar to get rid of the diluted taste and thickened up with corn flour or some similar. They were then able to list their products as low fat because water doesn't have a caloric value but it does have a weight, so fat is listed as a percentage of weight instead of a percentage of calories.

Nope, fat is always advertised as % calories as in 'LESS than X% Fat!' adding water or bulking out with fibre doesn't change this.



So we've been eating less fat than ever, and yet we're fatter, go figure!

jimmycrackcorm

The only problem with Atkins is that you can't have alcohol otherwise its not to difficult to follow.

Ice.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Nope, fat is always advertised as % calories as in 'LESS than X% Fat!' adding water or bulking out with fibre doesn't change this.

False. The %Fat is a % of weight. You just have to do the maths yourself. Most people just see the low fat% and that's it. Back to sleep. The food manufacturers would never cheat like that, would they?

silverharp

and what hope is there when for instance the food pyramid in the US is controlled by the dept of Agriculture. They're not exactly going to kick their their own lobby in the teeth

El_Dangeroso

Ice. wrote: »

False. The %Fat is a % of weight. You just have to do the maths yourself. Most people just see the low fat% and that's it. Back to sleep. The food manufacturers would never cheat like that, would they?

Hahahahaha!! Well I needed a laugh, that's so wrong it's hilarious. So you just conveniently didn't see that giant graph I posted then?

brianthebard

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The only problem with Atkins is that you can't have alcohol otherwise its not to difficult to follow.

Well if you want to lose weight as quickly as possible you'd probably have to drop alcohol for a while regardless of what diet you're following.

Ice.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Hahahahaha!! Well I needed a laugh, that's so wrong it's hilarious.

Glad to be of service although I'm surprised you had the energy to crack a smile being a low-carber and all:D

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

So you just conveniently didn't see that giant graph I posted then?

Well.. We can all draw a pretty graphs..

El_Dangeroso

Ice. wrote: »

Glad to be of service although I'm surprised you had the energy to crack a smile being a low-carber and all:D

Not a low carber actually.

Ice. wrote: »

Well.. We can all draw a pretty graphs..

And we can all choose to ignore the blatantly obvious.:D

Ice.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Not a low carber actually.

Fair enough.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

And we can all choose to ignore the blatantly obvious.:D

My thoughts exactly:rolleyes:

Jumpy

Ice. wrote: »

Glad to be of service although I'm surprised you had the energy to crack a smile being a low-carber and all:D



Well.. We can all draw a pretty graphs..

I used to cycle 40km a day while on low carb. Energy is not an issue.

Ice.

Jumpy wrote: »

I used to cycle 40km a day while on low carb. Energy is not an issue.

40km. Everyday? How long did it take you? Were there hills etc?

Jumpy

Ice. wrote: »

40km. Everyday? How long did it take you? Were there hills etc?

Yes, several. About an hour and a half. It was an unfinished motorway.

--Kaiser--

Ice. wrote: »

40km. Everyday? How long did it take you? Were there hills etc?

Go troll somewhere else, you'll get eaten alive in here

tHE vAGGABOND

Every single thread about atkins always descends into a mess like this tbh

Like every diet or program it works for some people and not others.

For me, I lost a pile of weight with it before a family wedding 5 or so years ago, but as soon as my eye was off the ball and I went onto the long term part I put it all back on [with some interest]. But thats just me, not the diets fault.

With regard to the science of it, many dont realize that the book was first published in the 70's and has been updated a few times and regained popularity a few times url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_diet[/url. If it really was dangerous I think we would have many walking peices of evidance, rather than half baked science report versus another half baked science report.

El_Dangeroso

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Every single thread about atkins always descends into a mess like this tbh

It really does, notice the way that people feel like they can make a totally unqualified opinion on low carb diets when no one would dream doing that to someone who posted about WW or low GI or anything else.

I'm totally with you on whatever you can stick to long term being the best for you.

Ah well, at least it livened up the forum for a bit, was getting very quiet round here

metamorphosis

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

It really does, notice the way that people feel like they can make a totally unqualified opinion on low carb diets when no one would dream doing that to someone who posted about WW or low GI or anything else.

I'm totally with you on whatever you can stick to long term being the best for you.

Ah well, at least it livened up the forum for a bit, was getting very quiet round here

CHANGE BACK TO YOUR OLD USERNAME!!!!

El_Dangeroso

ULstudent wrote: »

CHANGE BACK TO YOUR OLD USERNAME!!!!

LOL!! How long did it take you to recognise me?:cool:

Dudess

I restrict carbs - very little bread, and only brown if I do have any. Ditto rice and pasta. Very little potato too, eggs for breakfast instead of cereal/bread, etc. It suits my constitution a lot better to prioritise protein.

But Jesus, you need fibre and you need fruit and veg. Cutting out every semblance of a carb seems crazy! :eek:

El_Dangeroso

Dudess wrote: »

But Jesus, you need fibre and you need fruit and veg. Cutting out every semblance of a carb seems crazy! :eek:

That's why every single low carb (protein power, idiot proof diet, atkins, south beach, sugarbusters, eat fat get thin, life without bread etc.)plan empasises veggies and low sugar fruit. You should be eating vegetables by volume as the largest portion of your diet.

Ice.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Go troll somewhere else, you'll get eaten alive in here

Asking questions is trolling now?

silverharp

in an effort to find out how my body reacts to low carb exercising, I went for this cycle yesterday 50km and an ascents of 500m (see link). In the previous day and that morning I had purely low carb food. Now the last time I did this particular cycle was the end of Aug (pre low carb). In the mean time I had done a 100km cycle and a 75km (over the sally gap) , didnt get to do much in the last 2 weeks. I have lost about 5kg since August so thought the ride would be a doddle purely carrying less weight. It was harder then I thought and was about 10 minutes slower (though I wasnt looking at the clock) . So did it affect my performance? maybe, however feel fine now and just heading out for a 7km jog on an egg muffins and some bacon. I reckon if I was going to go for a 100km cycle I'd make a breakfast smoothie with bananas and other fruit.
So my conculsion for now is that if I'm going out for a 1 hr activity , I've no reason to carb up, for much longer stuff might be worth having complex carbs.


http://www.mapmyride.com/ride/ireland/dublin/977128178256328099

tHE vAGGABOND

I know from a running POV, its only after 1 hour odd that your bodys reserves are starting to run out, and what people call "the wall" becomes a factor [where the wall means you are out of fuel!]

El_Dangeroso

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I know from a running POV, its only after 1 hour odd that your bodys reserves are starting to run out, and what people call "the wall" becomes a factor [where the wall means you are out of fuel!]

I always thought 'the wall' was your body running out of glycogen and switching to fat burning no? If that's the case the wall should be less severe if already in ketosis? I know 'should' and 'is' are two different things though! Or is it something to do with lactic acid build up? I'm fuzzy on the biochem of exercise at the best of times.

I know that even if you carb up for a competition, if you do your training for said competition in a low glycogen state you gain an extra storage capacity for glycogen in your muscles when you do carb up and you burn 35% more fat in the fuel mix, at least according to this paper


So it seems training low carb but competing high carb seems the way to go, kind of like altitude training for your metabolism.

silverharp

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

So it seems training low carb but competing high carb seems the way to go, kind of like altitude training for your metabolism.

I just happened to be reading the following article. it seems intuitive that you could train your body to be more efficient in how your body gets its energy

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/sports-nutrition-the-latest-research-into-low-glycogen-training-42067

Should you train low and compete high?
If you’re new to the ‘train low, race high’ concept, there’s a lot of information to take in here, so let’s begin by summarising what the current research says about the subject:

1.Training with lower levels of glycogen in the muscles appears to elicit greater endurance adaptations in muscles, such as improved aerobic efficiency and increased capacity to burn fat compared to training with high levels of muscle glycogen;

2.This greater metabolic adaptation almost certainly occurs as a result of enhanced activation of so-called ‘thrifty’ genes;

3.There is no such advantage when strength training; indeed, low-glycogen training may actually be disadvantageous for strength and power athletes;

4.High levels of muscle glycogen are always recommended for maximum performance on any given day (eg during competition); while training with low glycogen stores may enhance long-term adaptation, actual performance during this training will not be enhanced and may well be diminished;

5.It’s still unclear as to the exact performance benefits of low-glycogen training. Although there are undoubtedly favourable metabolic changes after low-glycogen training, the results are rather mixed as to whether these changes translate into performance gains.