Atkins Diet Newbie

Rainbow_Bright

Hi guys,

I'm starting the Atkins diet next week. I have the book and lists of food but I'm curious as to what a typical daily menu looks like for others on the Atkins...


Any Atkins advice welcome.

Thanks

:pac:

ebixa82

Rainbow_Bright wrote: »

Hi guys,

I'm starting the Atkins diet next week. I have the book and lists of food but I'm curious as to what a typical daily menu looks like for others on the Atkins...


Any Atkins advice welcome.

Thanks

:pac:

The only advice I would give is to not go near the diet in the first place.

Eat healthy and exercise, don't waste your time with dangerous diets.

Orla K

ebixa82 wrote: »

The only advice I would give is to not go near the diet in the first place.

Eat healthy and exercise, don't waste your time with dangerous diets.

It's not dangerous.

ebixa82

Orla K wrote: »

It's not dangerous.

Ok, but it's not healthy. And what will the OP do once she's off it and has to revert back to eating like normal people? What will she have learnt from it and how will her body have adapted to deal with it?

Ziphius

Orla K wrote: »

It's not dangerous.

Sure about that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4814314.stm

BBC News wrote: »

Medics from New York, writing in the Lancet, describe a 40-year-old woman on the Atkins diet who developed a serious blood condition.

Public health doctors writing in the journal said low carb diets were "far from healthy".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735105

Pub Med wrote: »

Low carbohydrate-high protein diets, used on a regular basis and without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins, are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

:pac:

Orla K

ebixa82 wrote: »

Ok, but it's not healthy. And what will the OP do once she's off it and has to revert back to eating like normal people? What will she have learnt from it and how will her body have adapted to deal with it?

It has potential to be healthy, depends on how you look at it same can be said with just about any diet. Same again go's for eating like 'normal people' although I think the new atkins book addresses this. There is the potential to learn a lot what the body can and can't tolerate, it really depends on the op. As for the body adapting, I don't know what your getting at with that.

OP I can't really help you, I've never done atkins so wouldn't be too sure about meal plans. One thing to remember is that if it has a list of ingredients or comes in a box it's not good for you even if it is still allowed on the atkins diet.

Orla K

Ziphius wrote: »

Sure about that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4814314.stm



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735105



:pac:

Other things that have caused deaths are drinking water, going for a cycle, eating vegetables, driving a car even being a passenger in a car, walking home and maybe even sitting on the couch.

Just because something has caused a death doesn't mean much.

I think you should re-read what you posted in the last quote. It's talks about the quality of the food.

Ziphius

Orla K wrote: »

Other things that have caused deaths are drinking water, going for a cycle, eating vegetables, driving a car even being a passenger in a car, walking home and maybe even sitting on the couch.

Never said they weren't dangerous.

Orla K wrote: »

Just because something has caused a death doesn't mean much.

What's important is whether it causes more death than the alternative. Heart surgery probably kills a fair few people every year yet it saves a damn lot more than doing nothing. Can the same be said for fad diets such as Atkins? The alternative to Atkins is simple calorie restriction. This works. People don't like it but it's true.

Orla K wrote: »

I think you should re-read what you posted in the last quote. It's talks about the quality of the food.

What? It says "... without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins".

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

Sure about that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4814314.stm



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735105



:pac:

That is one case study, of a woman with a probable prior condition. Face that off against the dozens of studies examining ketogenic diets that have had zero immediate safety issues.

People seem to be confused about what Atkin's actually entails, the ketogenic stage is a short-term aspect. The book specifically says not to stay in induction for longer than 6 months, and even then only for very obese people.

If you want the facts rather than sensationalist scare-mongering, read the research on keto diets for epilepsy, there are real deficiencies that could accrue long term (lack of thiamine, possible issues with calcium metabolism), but they typically occur after years and not on the typical duration of Atkins.

I look at low carb diets as a useful short term hack to get your health back on track, same way as I would consider fasting. I lost my 40lb 5 years ago on a LC diet and it was my saviour as I had zero hunger and had great energy and mood on it. I now eat a variety of carbs and other healthy food and have not gained back the weight.

I would hate for your post to dissuade someone from trying something that may be a route back to health for them.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

That is one case study, of a woman with a probable prior condition. Face that off against the dozens of studies examining ketogenic diets that have had zero immediate safety issues.

People seem to be confused about what Atkin's actually entails, the ketogenic stage is a short-term aspect. The book specifically says not to stay in induction for longer than 6 months, and even then only for very obese people.

If you want the facts rather than sensationalist scare-mongering, read the research on keto diets for epilepsy, there are real deficiencies that could accrue long term (lack of thiamine, possible issues with calcium metabolism), but they typically occur after years and not on the typical duration of Atkins.

I look at low carb diets as a useful short term hack to get your health back on track, same way as I would consider fasting. I lost my 40lb 5 years ago on a LC diet and it was my saviour as I had zero hunger and had great energy and mood on it. I now eat a variety of carbs and other healthy food and have not gained back the weight.

I would hate for your post to dissuade someone from trying something that may be a route back to health for them.

Well the :pac: was meant to signal that my post was slightly tongue in cheek.

Of course a single story doesn't prove that a diet is inherently dangerous (although I did also include a cohort study).

I think people need to be wary of these fad miracles diets. Atkins isn't the worst but it's not something I would recommend to people.

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

Well the :pac: was meant to signal that my post was slightly tongue in cheek.

Of course a single story doesn't prove that a diet is inherently dangerous (although I did also include a cohort study).

I think people need to be wary of these fad miracles diets. Atkins isn't the worst but it's not something I would recommend to people.

The cohort study was severely flawed and was not studying low carb diets, it's been ripped to shreds in other threads if you want to have a search.

What is your definition of a fad diet? Is it newness? Because low carb diets are around much longer than low fat, low GI, the food pyramid and 'Mediterranean' diet (the diet not actually what people eat in the region).

By definition, all weight reducing diets are 'fads' because needing to reduce weight is a relatively new problem.

Many roads to Rome and all that, don't dismiss something out of hand because it is somewhat unconventional. Low carb diets are not a 'miracle' or panacea by any means, nor will they work for everyone. But they are a useful tool for some, and there is research to back this up.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

The cohort study was severely flawed and was not studying low carb diets, it's been ripped to shreds in other threads if you want to have a search.

Can you provide a link? I'm not saying this isn't true btw. If there is a flaw in the paper I'd like to know. Again, I was being tongue in cheek. I don't think Atkins diet will inevitably lead to heart failure in all it's adherents.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

What is your definition of a fad diet? Is it newness? Because low carb diets are around much longer than low fat, low GI, the food pyramid and 'Mediterranean' diet (the diet not actually what people eat in the region).

Well the Google definition of a fad is:

"An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze."

so this but about a diet.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

By definition, all weight reducing diets are 'fads' because needing to reduce weight is a relatively new problem.

No, maybe you could argue that desire for weight loss is a recent fad but not diets. A healthy diet is not a fad.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Many roads to Rome and all that, don't dismiss something out of hand because it is somewhat unconventional. Low carb diets are not a 'miracle' or panacea by any means, nor will they work for everyone. But they are a useful tool for some, and there is research to back this up.

I haven't dismissed anything out of hand. Nor am I saying that Atkins (or other fad diets) do not lead to weight loss. They do and often at a faster rate than a boring eat-less-exercise-more-diet. I am saying that there are healthier alternatives and people shouldn't just believe everything they read just because an MD has sold a million books on it.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

The cohort study was severely flawed and was not studying low carb diets, it's been ripped to shreds in other threads if you want to have a search.

Wait. Yes it was. From the paper's objectives.

"To study the long term consequences of low carbohydrate diets, generally characterised by concomitant increases in protein intake, on cardiovascular health".

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

Can you provide a link? I'm not saying this isn't true btw. If there is a flaw in the paper I'd like to know. Again, I was being tongue in cheek. I don't think Atkins diet will inevitably lead to heart failure in all it's adherents.

Well the Google definition of a fad is:

"An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze."

so this but about a diet.



No, maybe you could argue that desire for weight loss is a recent fad but not diets. A healthy diet is not a fad.

Every parameter by which we define a healthy diet is very new. Nutrition as a science is little over a century old.

Here's a good breakdown of that study: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-it-time-to-retire-the-low-carb-diet-fad/#axzz29J49nrp4

The diets they studied were not low carb by any stretch of the imagination.

Ziphius wrote: »

I haven't dismissed anything out of hand. Nor am I saying that Atkins (or other fad diets) do not lead to weight loss. They do and often at a faster rate than a boring eat-less-exercise-more-diet. I am saying that there are healthier alternatives and people shouldn't just believe everything they read just because an MD has sold a million books on it.

By labelling something as a fad, you are sort of dismissing it out of hand. By all current long term studies, low carb performs equally well if not -better than alternatives, it especially out-performs straight up calorie counting by any metric you'd like to mention.

It may well have been a fad in 2004, the height of the craze, but now it has far too much real science backing it up for it to be an acceptable assessment of the method.

Ziphius wrote: »

Wait. Yes it was. From the paper's objectives.

"To study the long term consequences of low carbohydrate diets, generally characterised by concomitant increases in protein intake, on cardiovascular health".

The paper looked at surrogate markers, not actual heart disease. There are other papers that say the opposite, I'll concede that there is generally a temporary rise in LDL in some, though the latest research states the most potent predictor of heart disease is the Total Cholesterol:HDL ratio, and this is favourably affected by low carb.

But as I mentioned before, even the very low carb stage would be considered a temporary measure to return to normal weight, after which a more sustainable regime can be implemented to avoid any loss of diet variety and potential micro-nutrient deficiency.

El_Dangeroso

I actually forgot to answer the OP.

Typical day on Atkins would be:

B: Omlette with lots of low-starch vegetables

L: Salad with a protein and lots of vegetables/ Lettuce 'wraps' where lettuce replaces bread

Meat or fish with lots of vegetables/stew made with loads of vegetables/ veg and and meat stir fry

There are loads of induction-friendly recipes online if you have a look. I will give a few pointers to avoid common pitfalls:

1. Take the supplements, the diet is very restrictive and you will need them, especially vitamin C

2. Eat a tonne of vegetables, you will need the potassium (to avoid cramps) and you cannot supplement this.

3. Don't eat crap low carb alternatives of bread/cookies/sweets, they WILL stall you

4. Don't eat shop-bought mayonnaise or a lot of vegetable oil, they are low carb but not healthy.

5. Transition up to higher carb at the appropriate time, ie follow the book, don't stay in induction because it brings quick weight loss, you need to get used to higher carbs and transition gently to this. In my own experience, fruit and potatoes are the best things to add in first as they are very unprocessed and gentle on the digestion.

6. You will feel very very crap day 4 or 5, hang in there, it lasts a day and is just your body juddering into ketosis. It really should not last more than two days, if it does then quit, low carb is not for you.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Here's a good breakdown of that study: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-it-time-to-retire-the-low-carb-diet-fad/#axzz29J49nrp4

The diets they studied were not low carb by any stretch of the imagination.

:rolleyes: Firstly this is a blog article from something that advocates something called "Primal living in the modern world" whatever that is. Don't you have a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Secondly it isn't even about the article that I linked. This article doesn't even bother with proper referencing so I'm not going to read it in depth.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

By labelling something as a fad, you are sort of dismissing it out of hand. By all current long term studies, low carb performs equally well if not -better than alternatives, it especially out-performs straight up calorie counting by any metric you'd like to mention.

Well actually no I'm not. I'm not dismissing it because I've called it a fad. Again, show me the evidence.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

It may well have been a fad in 2004, the height of the craze, but now it has far too much real science backing it up for it to be an acceptable assessment of the method.

Evidence?

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

The paper looked at surrogate markers, not actual heart disease. There are other papers that say the opposite, I'll concede that there is generally a temporary rise in LDL in some, though the latest research states the most potent predictor of heart disease is the Total Cholesterol:HDL ratio, and this is favourably effected by low carb.

Seeing as you didn't even read the paper I think it's fair we dismiss this point.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

But as I mentioned before, even the very low carb stage would be considered a temporary measure to return to normal weight, after which a more sustainable regime can be implemented to avoid any loss of diet variety and potential micro-nutrient deficiency.

But is this healthy? Why not just follow a balanced diet with less calories?

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I actually forgot to answer the OP.

Typical day on Atkins would be:

B: Omlette with lots of low-starch vegetables

L: Salad with a protein and lots of vegetables/ Lettuce 'wraps' where lettuce replaces bread

Meat or fish with lots of vegetables/stew made with loads of vegetables/ veg and and meat stir fry

There are loads of induction-friendly recipes online if you have a look. I will give a few pointers to avoid common pitfalls:

1. Take the supplements, the diet is very restrictive and you will need them, especially vitamin C

2. Eat a tonne of vegetables, you will need the potassium (to avoid cramps) and you cannot supplement this.

3. Don't eat crap low carb alternatives of bread/cookies/sweets, they WILL stall you

4. Don't eat shop-bought mayonnaise or a lot of vegetable oil, they are low carb but not healthy.

5. Transition up to higher carb at the appropriate time, ie follow the book, don't stay in induction because it brings quick weight loss, you need to get used to higher carbs and transition gently to this. In my own experience, fruit and potatoes are the best things to add in first as they are very unprocessed and gentle on the digestion.

6. You will feel very very crap day 4 or 5, hang in there, it lasts a day and is just your body juddering into ketosis. It really should not last more than two days, if it does then quit, low carb is not for you.

I'll clarify. I don't think this is especially unhealthy. Merely warning that there is a danger in the over zealous following of fad diets.

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

:rolleyes: Firstly this is a blog article from something that advocates something called "Primal living in the modern world" whatever that is. Don't you have a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Secondly it isn't even about the article that I linked. This article doesn't even bother with proper referencing so I'm not going to read it in depth.



Well actually no I'm not. I'm not dismissing it because I've called it a fad. Again, show me the evidence.



Evidence?



Seeing as you didn't even read the paper I think it's fair we dismiss this point.



But is this healthy? Why not just follow a balanced diet with less calories?

Oops that is the other swedish study, my criticism of it still stands, the diet studied in the cohort was not ketogenic, it was observational and randomised clinical trials have shown that low carb improves health better than current recommendations.

You want evidence?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/

Now where is your evidence? Something long term (>6 months) would be great thx.

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

I'll clarify. I don't think this is especially unhealthy. Merely warning that there is a danger in the over zealous following of fad diets.

Let me clarify also, LC diets are not for everyone, but in my personal case I had tried the eat less approach and I was just too hungry, the hunger suppression allowed me to stick to the diet, lose weight while increasing my energy levels which made me want to exercise (for the first time in my life), and now I eat a varied diet while easily keeping the weight off.

Nothing faddy about it.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Oops that is the other swedish study, my criticism of it still stands, the diet studied in the cohort was not ketogenic, it was observational and randomised clinical trials have shown that low carb improves health better than current recommendations.

You want evidence?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/

Now where is your evidence? Something long term (>6 months) would be great thx.

Though you've provide five links there are only 3 papers. Thx. :rolleyes:
From skimming them they do not show a increase in weight loss or a difference in health between treatments.

This paper http://intl.jacn.org/content/19/5/578.full warns that diets such as Atkins can lead to increased risk in coronary heart disease.

To be honest I don't really care what the people on this forum eat. Let them it cake for all I care. There are a lot of self proclaimed experts and I'm advising cautious skepticism.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Let me clarify also, LC diets are not for everyone, but in my personal case I had tried the eat less approach and I was just too hungry, the hunger suppression allowed me to stick to the diet, lose weight while increasing my energy levels which made me want to exercise (for the first time in my life), and now I eat a varied diet while easily keeping the weight off.

Nothing faddy about it.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to attack you personally or a diet you found useful merely trying to advising others to think about what they are doing.

Orla K

Ziphius wrote: »

Never said they weren't dangerous.

My point is if you do anything the wrong way it can be bad but that doesn't mean it is a bad thing to do right.

Ziphius wrote: »

What's important is whether it causes more death than the alternative. Heart surgery probably kills a fair few people every year yet it saves a damn lot more than doing nothing. Can the same be said for fad diets such as Atkins? The alternative to Atkins is simple calorie restriction. This works. People don't like it but it's true.

Calorie restriction does not always work, what you eat matters too and for some people what you eat matters more for a variety of reasons. It's a case of quality and quantity, this works people can find it overwhelming but it's true.

Ziphius wrote: »

What? It says "... without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins".

I still think your not actually reading it properly, read it think about the words they have used and the reasons why they have used those words rather than any others.

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

Though you've provide five links there are only 3 papers. Thx. :rolleyes:
From skimming them they do not show a increase in weight loss or a difference in health between treatments.

This paper http://intl.jacn.org/content/19/5/578.full warns that diets such as Atkins can lead to increased risk in coronary heart disease.

To be honest I don't really care what the people on this forum eat. Let them it cake for all I care. There are a lot of self proclaimed experts and I'm advising cautious skepticism.

Well, by all means ignore the papers I posted in favour of nitpicking their duplication, the reason I posted them was to show that a 'balanced' diet has no health advantage to low carb, you were the one doing the scare-mongering remember?

That paper you posted is a review, please post interventional research rather than someone's opinion of research. I'm still waiting.

You advise skeptism towards low carb but not towards recommendations that are very new and based upon very little evidence? That's not very logical is it?

Maybe think twice about posting things you clearly don't know very much about.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Well, by all means ignore the papers I posted in favour of nitpicking their duplication, the reason I posted them was to show that a 'balanced' diet has no health advantage to low carb, you were the one doing the scare-mongering remember?

You should remove the duplicate papers from your original post. That you haven't makes it look like you're trying to artificially increase the evidence for your case. I'll read them later but superficially they do not suggest any advantage with the Atkins diet.

I already posted that I don't believe the Atkins diet is necessarily unhealthy. But hey, don't let that stop you misrepresenting me. It seems apt that the poor quality of your debating skills matches that of your dietary advise.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

That paper you posted is a review, please post interventional research rather than someone's opinion of research. I'm still waiting.

Actually it's not a review. Moreover, a review isn't just someones opinion it's a compilation of existing research on a field. Arguably a review would be better evidence than a single paper as it would look at existing evidence. Patience please. No wonder you went for the diet quick fix :rolleyes:

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You advise skeptism towards low carb but not towards recommendations that are very new and based upon very little evidence? That's not very logical is it?

...er... like what?

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Maybe think twice about posting things you clearly don't know very much about.

Likewise.

Ziphius

Orla K wrote: »

My point is if you do anything the wrong way it can be bad but that doesn't mean it is a bad thing to do right.

True. I guess.

Orla K wrote: »

Calorie restriction does not always work, what you eat matters too and for some people what you eat matters more for a variety of reasons. It's a case of quality and quantity, this works people can find it overwhelming but it's true.

Well "... if you do anything the wrong way it can be bad but that doesn't mean it is a bad thing to do right".

The fact is if you eat less calories than you expend you will lose weight. It doesn't matter what the food is.

Orla K wrote: »

I still think your not actually reading it properly, read it think about the words they have used and the reasons why they have used those words rather than any others.

What? It's pretty clear what they mean.

Orla K

Ziphius wrote: »

The fact is if you eat less calories than you expend you will lose weight. It doesn't matter what the food is.

This is just plain wrong, for most people yes it's eat less but there are plenty of people that are only chasing their own tail if they just eat less and not care about what they are eating. Take someone with hypothyroidism, if they eat a diet with tofu, lots of leafy green veg, sweet potatoes and sauerkraut(for a healthy gut) if that person eats a 1200 kcal diet they will gain weight because they are all goitrogens and will reduce thyroid function.
Then there's people will insulin problems.

Food matters you quoted link should be telling you that.

The great thing about the atkins diet is that it allows you to eat at a deficit without counting calories and without feeling like you could eat your own arm.

I'm finding it odd that you've started out implying that the atkins is dangerous (by proving a link to a death and questioning my statement of it not being dangerous) then you go on to say that you don't think it's unhealthy.
Was the first an over reaction or the second a bit of backtracking, maybe something else entirely?

Ziphius

Orla K wrote: »

This is just plain wrong, for most people yes it's eat less but there are plenty of people that are only chasing their own tail if they just eat less and not care about what they are eating. Take someone with hypothyroidism, if they eat a diet with tofu, lots of leafy green veg, sweet potatoes and sauerkraut(for a healthy gut) if that person eats a 1200 kcal diet they will gain weight because they are all goitrogens and will reduce thyroid function.
Then there's people will insulin problems.

Okay look if we're taking about retaining/or losing water than yes, sure, what you eat may play a role in your weight. I was referring to bodymass, fat, muscle etc which is down to calories.

Orla K wrote: »

The great thing about the atkins diet is that it allows you to eat at a deficit without counting calories and without feeling like you could eat your own arm.

Atkins does reduce appetite so a reduction in calorie intake follows. I never said you won't lose weight with it. And if it helps people who struggle with other diets fair enough. It is not, however, a miracle cure.

Orla K wrote: »

I'm finding it odd that you've started out implying that the atkins is dangerous (by proving a link to a death and questioning my statement of it not being dangerous) then you go on to say that you don't think it's unhealthy.
Was the first an over reaction or the second a bit of backtracking, maybe something else entirely?

I questioned your statement that it was not dangerous. Restrictive diets can, and do, cause health problems in certain people. I'm not saying everyone.

Once again, Atkins may have worked for you, and many others, nothing wrong with that. I imagine the majority who adhere to it a just as healthy as those eating a "normal" diet. I'm just advising scepticism.

Orla K

Ziphius wrote: »

Okay look if we're taking about retaining/or losing water than yes, sure, what you eat may play a role in your weight. I was referring to bodymass, fat, muscle etc which is down to calories.
Atkins does reduce appetite so a reduction in calorie intake follows. I never said you won't lose weight with it. And if it helps people who struggle with other diets fair enough. It is not, however, a miracle cure.
I questioned your statement that it was not dangerous. Restrictive diets can, and do, cause health problems in certain people. I'm not saying everyone.
Once again, Atkins may have worked for you, and many others, nothing wrong with that. I imagine the majority who adhere to it a just as healthy as those eating a "normal" diet. I'm just advising scepticism.

I am not talking about a reduction in water weight, I'm talking about a reduction in body fat, I've seen it happen, weight gain on a lower calorie diet and when the food was changed and calories upped body fat was reduced.
Atkins isn't a miracle cure your the only one saying that, like everything worth while in life it takes hard work and discipline.
A standard 'balanced' diet(calorie reduced or not) can cause more health problems in more people. Crap but true that there's some things nearly everyone eats on a daily bases that shouldn't be even looked at as food and should never be touched. Restrictive, yes but better for you and easier to adhere to than just a reduction in calories.
Atkins didn't work for me, I've never even tried it but I can see for the majority of people it can be a great way of reducing weight with ease, it could help more people if it wasn't getting bashed as unhealthy/dangerous.

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

You should remove the duplicate papers from your original post. That you haven't makes it look like you're trying to artificially increase the evidence for your case. I'll read them later but superficially they do not suggest any advantage with the Atkins diet.

I already posted that I don't believe the Atkins diet is necessarily unhealthy. But hey, don't let that stop you misrepresenting me. It seems apt that the poor quality of your debating skills matches that of your dietary advise.



Actually it's not a review. Moreover, a review isn't just someones opinion it's a compilation of existing research on a field. Arguably a review would be better evidence than a single paper as it would look at existing evidence. Patience please. No wonder you went for the diet quick fix :rolleyes:



...er... like what?



Likewise.

You're very fond of the roll-eyes smiley, the last bastion of those with nothing of any consequence to add to a discussion.

A review is not superior to a single paper as a form of evidence, a systemic review perhaps, but a review is subject to narrative, interpretation and ultimately presents an opinion of an author, to believe otherwise is deeply naive.

Again I will ask you for a single paper of at least medium term duration showing that low carb diets are more dangerous for weight loss than balanced diets. It's a simple request, unless of course you were wrong in that statement and are now trying to dance around the issue by ignoring my request.

Orla K

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Again I will ask you for a single paper of at least medium term duration showing that low carb diets are more dangerous for weight loss than balanced diets. It's a simple request, unless of course you were wrong in that statement and are now trying to dance around the issue by ignoring my request.

Ziphius wrote: »

I imagine the majority who adhere to it a just as healthy as those eating a "normal" diet. I'm just advising scepticism.

I don't think your going to get it. Although I'm wondering why normal is in inverted commas.

Actually it's not a review. Moreover, a review isn't just someones opinion it's a compilation of existing research on a field. Arguably a review would be better evidence than a single paper as it would look at existing evidence. Patience please. No wonder you went for the diet quick fix

This is an obvious stall and distraction. Another reason why I don't think your going to get it.

Rainbow_Bright

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I actually forgot to answer the OP.

Typical day on Atkins would be:

B: Omlette with lots of low-starch vegetables

L: Salad with a protein and lots of vegetables/ Lettuce 'wraps' where lettuce replaces bread

Meat or fish with lots of vegetables/stew made with loads of vegetables/ veg and and meat stir fry

There are loads of induction-friendly recipes online if you have a look. I will give a few pointers to avoid common pitfalls:

1. Take the supplements, the diet is very restrictive and you will need them, especially vitamin C

2. Eat a tonne of vegetables, you will need the potassium (to avoid cramps) and you cannot supplement this.

3. Don't eat crap low carb alternatives of bread/cookies/sweets, they WILL stall you

4. Don't eat shop-bought mayonnaise or a lot of vegetable oil, they are low carb but not healthy.

5. Transition up to higher carb at the appropriate time, ie follow the book, don't stay in induction because it brings quick weight loss, you need to get used to higher carbs and transition gently to this. In my own experience, fruit and potatoes are the best things to add in first as they are very unprocessed and gentle on the digestion.

6. You will feel very very crap day 4 or 5, hang in there, it lasts a day and is just your body juddering into ketosis. It really should not last more than two days, if it does then quit, low carb is not for you.

Thanks , that's great. My plan is to see how and induction goes and take it from there. It's not a long term thing - simply an attempt to shed a few lbs.

siochain

Ziphius wrote: »

:rolleyes: Firstly this is a blog article from something that advocates something called "Primal living in the modern world" whatever that is. Don't you have a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Secondly it isn't even about the article that I linked. This article doesn't even bother with proper referencing so I'm not going to read it in depth.



Well actually no I'm not. I'm not dismissing it because I've called it a fad. Again, show me the evidence.



Evidence?



Seeing as you didn't even read the paper I think it's fair we dismiss this point.



But is this healthy? Why not just follow a balanced diet with less calories?

Because the recomended balanced diet as per the food pyramid that the majority of docs & PTs refer too is driving obesity and all it's related health problems.

ebixa82

ebixa82 wrote: »

And what will the OP do once she's off it and has to revert back to eating like normal people?

Ziphius wrote: »

But is this healthy? Why not just follow a balanced diet with less calories?

But what will the OP do when they have to go back to eating more calories like normal people?!?! :eek:

Precious flower

If you want to lose weight eat less and exercise more. Diets, like the Atkins, blood type diet, pH diet etc. in my opinion, are a waste of time. Grand, you may lose the weight while you're on it but the minute you come off it, you'll pile the weight back on again. Some people manage not to do this, but the majority will not stick to it. Let's be realistic. You don't need a book to tell you what to eat. You know what you shouldn't be eating. Diets are a bad idea also because some encourage you to leave out a whole food group which is dangerous. Diets are the easy way out for people. Look at what you're eating, don't eat junk food, exercise and you will lose weight.

Precious flower

Precious flower wrote: »

You don't need a book to tell you what to eat. You know what you shouldn't be eating.

Considering the number of people who post on these forums that they have a healthy diet full of special k or muesli and bread etc, no, I don't think it is quite that simple

Ziphius

siochain wrote: »

Because the recomended balanced diet as per the food pyramid that the majority of docs & PTs refer too is driving obesity and all it's related health problems.

Eater more calories than you expend per day is what is driving obesity. Not the type of food.

bluewolf wrote: »

But what will the OP do when they have to go back to eating more calories like normal people?!?! :eek:

Put on more weight. Then they must attempt to balance calorie intake with expenditure.

Precious flower wrote: »

If you want to lose weight eat less and exercise more. Diets, like the Atkins, blood type diet, pH diet etc. in my opinion, are a waste of time. Grand, you may lose the weight while you're on it but the minute you come off it, you'll pile the weight back on again. Some people manage not to do this, but the majority will not stick to it. Let's be realistic. You don't need a book to tell you what to eat. You know what you shouldn't be eating. Diets are a bad idea also because some encourage you to leave out a whole food group which is dangerous. Diets are the easy way out for people. Look at what you're eating, don't eat junk food, exercise and you will lose weight.

Exactly.

El_Dangeroso

It would be great if anyone advocating just eat less could come up with any evidence that this works better than Atkins in any significant way.

Atkin's causes you to eat less anyway. There's a number of ways to naturally desire less food, they are all valid strategies if they work.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

It would be great if anyone advocating just eat less could come up with any evidence that this works better than Atkins in any significant way.

Atkin's causes you to eat less anyway. There's a number of ways to naturally desire less food, they are all valid strategies if they work.

I'll address your earlier post later when I have more time. Though, here you seem to agree that the Atkins diet functions by intake less energy than is expended in the exact same manner as the conventional calorie reduction diet.

gosuckonalemon

Rainbow_Bright wrote: »

Thanks , that's great. My plan is to see how and induction goes and take it from there. It's not a long term thing - simply an attempt to shed a few lbs.

......and then put them back on plus some more when you stop the diet.

Hard to imagine people still cod themselves with these quick fix fads,
just eat healthy and exercise. Otherwise you are just setting yourself up for a fall.

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

I'll address your earlier post later when I have more time. Though, here you seem to agree that the Atkins diet functions by intake less energy than is expended in the exact same manner as the conventional calorie reduction diet.

Of course it does! How else did you think it worked? Ketosis causes intense hunger suppression, calories spontaneously drop to 1300-1500 a day with zero hunger, energy levels spontaneously increase and there is a huge desire to exercise. Conscious calorie restriction causes hunger pangs and food obsession, this is well documented. THAT is the difference between the two diets, one is effortless, the other requires considerable effort (in those who are suited to it like me and countless others on this forum).

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

......and then put them back on plus some more when you stop the diet.

Hard to imagine people still cod themselves with these quick fix fads,
just eat healthy and exercise. Otherwise you are just setting yourself up for a fall.

Oh yeah, because people never ever regain weight from 'just healthy eating and exercise', never ever. :pac:

Actually, there is evidence that the quicker you lose weight the more likely you are to keep it off long term. Something to be said for the quick fix I think.

El_Dangeroso

Also, can someone please define 'eat healthy and exercise' to me exactly, it's such a nebulous concept.

gosuckonalemon

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Oh yeah, because people never ever regain weight from 'just healthy eating and exercise', never ever. :pac:

Actually, there is evidence that the quicker you lose weight the more likely you are to keep it off long term. Something to be said for the quick fix I think.

The key here is education. If you educate yourself as to what is healthy and what is not, then you will find it hard to revert back to eating unhealthily. That's why you are unlikely to regain weight like you do after giving up a diet.

Diets teach you nothing about eating healthily, they just enable you to lose weight rapidly.

With exercise, it's not just your body shape that improves, but you feel better. That's why people who start a sport or exercise regime find it hard to stop. Again, the atkins diet won't teach you this

siochain

Ziphius wrote: »

Eater more calories than you expend per day is what is driving obesity. Not the type of food.






.

Your way off and way outdated. I would suggest you go and research how insulin levels effect fat storage.

Ever wonder why in areas of the world that have high malnutrition also have high obesity? In the same household?

Ever wonder why since the promotion of whole grain, high carb and low fat diets that heart disease and diabetes rates are increasing?

El_Dangeroso

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

The key here is education. If you educate yourself as to what is healthy and what is not, then you will find it hard to revert back to eating unhealthily. That's why you are unlikely to regain weight like you do after giving up a diet.

Diets teach you nothing about eating healthily, they just enable you to lose weight rapidly.

With exercise, it's not just your body shape that improves, but you feel better. That's why people who start a sport or exercise regime find it hard to stop. Again, the Atkins diet won't teach you this

You have clearly never read Atkins book, it addresses most of those points. Also the vast majority of people who start a sports or exercise regime find it very easy to stop, hence why gyms are packed in January and near empty come April.

You don't 'give up' a diet, you go to the maintenance stage.

Spouting vague statements like 'eat healthy' does little for most people, some people need more structure than that.

El_Dangeroso

siochain wrote: »

Your way off and way outdated. I would suggest you go and research how insulin levels effect fat storage.

Ever wonder why in areas of the world that have high malnutrition also have high obesity? In the same household?

Ever wonder why since the promotion of whole grain, high carb and low fat diets that heart disease and diabetes rates are increasing?

Hmm.. I don't agree with this I have to say, weight loss is pretty much always down to eating less.

Where a lot of the public advice goes wrong is that they assume that eating less through sheer conscious effort alone is not a ridiculously difficult task long term.

mood

Do you know that Dr. Akins died of a heart attach? His diet and advice is simple not healthy.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Of course it does! How else did you think it worked?

Ziphius wrote: »

Atkins does reduce appetite so a reduction in calorie intake follows. I never said you won't lose weight with it. And if it helps people who struggle with other diets fair enough. It is not, however, a miracle cure.

See post 27. Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent me?

El_Dangeroso

mood wrote: »

Do you know that Dr. Akins died of a heart attach? His diet and advice is simple not healthy.

Oh FFS. No he did not, he did from head trauma as a result of a fall. Look at the official death report.

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

See post 27. Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent me?

LOL!

You're seriously clutching at straws now aren't you? You original statement that Atkins was dangerous is now thoroughly refuted. You were asked to provide evidence for this statement and it was found to be insufficient.

I don't know why you're still hanging around this thread.

Ziphius

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

LOL!

You're seriously clutching at straws now aren't you? You original statement that Atkins was dangerous is now thoroughly refuted. You were asked to provide evidence for this statement and it was found to be insufficient.

I don't know why you're still hanging around this thread.

Bizarre. You accuse me of not understanding how Atkins works. I show you a post of mine that refutes this. And then you say "you're seriously clutching at straws".

You do realize that all the past posts remain here. People can go back and check what's written.

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

Bizarre. You accuse me of not understanding how Atkins works. I show you a post of mine that refutes this. And then you say "you're seriously clutching at straws".

You do realize that all the past posts remain here. People can go back and check what's written.

So you agree Atkins isn't all all dangerous? Good. Glad we agree.