Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Atkins I feel very sick help

1235

Comments

  • #122
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    WhyTheFace wrote: »
    Again, nobody said you couldn't survive on zero carbs. But the best diet to have should incorporate some carbs, the exact amount is debatable. Without some level of carbs, the main source of fuel to drive the body, the diet is incomplete.

    You can survive without washing yourself too, doesn't mean you should.

    Luckily you are here on a discussion broad with people that are interested in debating it then isn't it? What amount do you recommend and why? Are you aware of how your body reacts on a low to no carb diet?


  • #123
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    WhyTheFace wrote: »
    That is absolutely ridiculous to eat nothing all day. No matter how much butter you eat for breakfast

    Why is it ridiculous, have you not heard of fasting?


  • #124
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    WhyTheFace wrote: »
    This coming from someone who eats butter instead of fruit, veg, protein etc. throughout the day.

    SOunds like a sound diet you got there.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90142229&postcount=44

    Your really showing your ignorance of a ketogenic diet now


  • #125
    kevpants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭kevpants


    ford2600 wrote: »
    On Wednesday, I had a coffee with butter/cocunut fat for breakfast at 6am.

    I ate nothing for rest of day. At 7pm I got on bike for 1.5hrs of medium to high intensity workout.

    Wasn't hungry all day. How do I do that on a "balanced" diet?

    Some people perform better on a HFLC diet is that hard to understand

    This is absolutely ridiculous. Your argument in favour of your choice of diet is one of the most ignorant things I've seen on this forum in years. Reduced appetite is a well known side effect of a no carb diet, this means absolutely nothing in so far as whether not eating is a good thing. Just because you weren't hungry doesn't mean you didn't completely balls up your diet for the day.

    NO ONE performs better on your diet. NO ONE. How many in the pelaton in the TdF this year will be licking sticks of Kerrygold instead of energy gels? None. No athlete who actually had something to lose would choose your dietary lifestyle. Only a casual athlete whose hobby is nutritional zealotry would make the claims you are. Under no circumstances EVER, has there been evidence of any kind of distance runner, cyclist etc who performs better without carbs.

    The availability of the energy you derive from your diet is HUGELY less efficient than someone who utilizes carbs instead.

    Just because you are able to cope with your training and diet doesn't mean you are performing optimally, you're not. A plate of pasta would improve your performance whether you choose to believe it or not.

    If you want to step into the void and become the man who proves there's a better energy source for a cyclist than Glycogen then bring it on.
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Why is it ridiculous, have you not heard of fasting?

    Ahh would you stop. People are so easily confused between diets that have demonstrated weight loss and diets that aid performance. Fasting doesn't aid anyone's performance. It's extremely fashionable to run down diets full of bread and pasta because of the gluten inflammation and the leaky gut and the toxins but people do forget that the guy who eats toast but who's delts you can't see the striations in is a hell of a lot stronger and can run a lot further than the guy taking mirror selfies.


  • #126
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    optimumnutrition4sport.com

    Google Peter Attia

    Google Ryan Sherlock, elite Irsh cyclist and mtb.

    etc etc etc

    Again its low carb not no carb..


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    kevpants wrote: »
    Ahh would you stop. People are so easily confused between diets that have demonstrated weight loss and diets that aid performance. Fasting doesn't aid anyone's performance. It's extremely fashionable to run down diets full of bread and pasta because of the gluten inflammation and the leaky gut and the toxins but people do forget that the guy who eats toast but who's delts you can't see the striations in is a hell of a lot stronger and can run a lot further than the guy taking mirror selfies.

    Who said anything about bread or gluten? I am eating a ham and cheese French bread roll as I type this.

    There is plenty of evidence that shows performance is fine during a fast. There are a whole lump of people that use IF as a method to lean and there is another whole lump that will fast for a day or two every so often and they report no issues with training.
    kevpants wrote: »
    The availability of the energy you derive from your diet is HUGELY less efficient than someone who utilizes carbs instead.

    Ah would you stop, it s not HUGELY less efficient in the slightest :pac:


  • #128
    macnug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭macnug


    In all honesty the fattest Ive ever been in my life was the year after a four month stint on the Atkins (which was the lightest ive ever been). My point is it destroyed my natural metabolism and was the start of a yoyo pattern. In saying that I do think carb manipulation is a huge key to weight loss but the Atkins is just too strict.


  • #129
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    I'm not competing in the TDF,I'm an endurance audax cyclist. For such cycling, at the steady heart rates fat is an ideal fuel source.

    As metabolic failure is one of main reasons for failing to complete such events a high fat diet neat gets around the need to digest 5000kcal while riding a 16+hr plus event.

    An elite racing cyclist can spare his glycogen stores and train his body to burn fat at higher rates. There are some elite TDF cyclist's doing this.

    My performance on bike has not suffered at all. I feel better, have lost bodyfat, recovery better and bloods have improved drastically.

    In the early 80's Steve Pinney did 6 week laboratory test on elite cyclists on a very high fat diet with no loss of performance following 10 days of adaptation. It's nothing new.

    Guys are running ultra marathons and longer with next to no food. Including Barry Murray of optimumnutritionforsport and @enduro who posts here


  • #130
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    macnug wrote: »
    In all honesty the fattest Ive ever been in my life was the year after a four month stint on the Atkins (which was the lightest ive ever been). My point is it destroyed my natural metabolism and was the start of a yoyo pattern. In saying that I do think carb manipulation is a huge key to weight loss but the Atkins is just too strict.

    Going low carb wont destroy your metabolism.


  • #131
    macnug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭macnug


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Going low carb wont destroy your metabolism.

    Ok if you say so.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    macnug wrote: »
    Ok if you say so.

    Science says so. Go ask him. Low carb doesn't destroy your metabolism (protein has a higher thermogenic effect anyway) at all and isn't why you put on weight. You put on weight because you ate too much.


  • #133
    MaceFace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    macnug wrote: »
    Ok if you say so.

    Not just him saying so.

    Making a wild assumption here but your regain and increase in body fat was a relapse to old eating patterns that caused you to be of a certain size.

    The risk with Atkins as with any other diet is that it sets a person up to eat a very different way that they are used to and in many cases one that a person can not or does not want to "live by". Once they revert to a more "normal" diet, things can go awry.
    So, it's not the diet that causes the problem, but what the person does once the diet ends.


  • #134
    kevpants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭kevpants


    ford2600 wrote: »
    optimumnutrition4sport.com

    Google Peter Attia

    Google Ryan Sherlock, elite Irsh cyclist and mtb.

    etc etc etc

    Again its low carb not no carb..

    Multiple examples of people coping with their training in spite of their lifestyle choice means nothing. You can the yourself in knots doing that. Throw Rich Roll and his disciples into the mix and you have all these so called elites "proving" vegan is optimum.

    All this is is another discussion trying to shoehorn the idea that one of these extreme nutritional dogmas is the best way and that the middle ground ploughed by 99% of the athletic population is wrong because some people are just drawn to that way of thinking.


  • #135
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    MaceFace wrote: »
    Not just him saying so.

    Making a wild assumption here but your regain and increase in body fat was a relapse to old eating patterns that caused you to be of a certain size.

    The risk with Atkins as with any other diet is that it sets a person up to eat a very different way that they are used to and in many cases one that a person can not or does not want to "live by". Once they revert to a more "normal" diet, things can go awry.
    So, it's not the diet that causes the problem, but what the person does once the diet ends.
    This is the point I was clumsily trying to make pages ago, when talking about fads. The people who pick up the Atkins book or any diet book are usually looking for a fix to a weight issue, but they jump from one form of extreme eating (high sugar, excess calories, junk food) to another (high fat, high protein, low cal etc), while never understanding that they could quite happily stay at a normal weight without going to any extremes. But the quick fix is attractive. They do it, lose weight, and go yeehaw! back to normal eating, and put it all back on again. It is possible to live on no carb/low carb, but for Mr & Mrs Everyday, its probably not the best advice to begin with. A clean diet is a better start imo.

    It was recommended that I try low carb, and I did, and whether I didn't try hard enough, or fill the nutritional gaps right, or I am just a sugar junkie I don't know, I felt wretched.


  • #136
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    kevpants wrote: »
    Multiple examples of people coping with their training in spite of their lifestyle choice means nothing. You can the yourself in knots doing that. Throw Rich Roll and his disciples into the mix and you have all these so called elites "proving" vegan is optimum.

    All this is is another discussion trying to shoehorn the idea that one of these extreme nutritional dogmas is the best way and that the middle ground ploughed by 99% of the athletic population is wrong because some people are just drawn to that way of thinking.

    Dunno where you got that from, i didn't see anyone claiming it was optimum. Some guy is saying that you cant survive/thrive on low carb when this clearly isnt the case. He also said that carbs are essential for a balanced diet but wont say what this balance is.


  • #137
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    "these extreme nutritional dogmas is the best way"

    Show in any of my posts where I have said this is the best way for anybody BUT me? I don't believe there is a best way that applies to everybody.

    Dogma? How is it dogma? This works for me and many others. I notice huge health benefits.

    Dogma is pushing food pyramid, low fat for all, but you seem to know it all and what's best for everyone.


  • #138
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Dogma is pushing food pyramid, low fat for all, but you seem to know it all and what's best for everyone.

    In fairness he does have great shoes.


  • #139
    macnug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭macnug


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Science says so. Go ask him. Low carb doesn't destroy your metabolism (protein has a higher thermogenic effect anyway) at all and isn't why you put on weight. You put on weight because you ate too much.


    Well next time supply the scientific links instead of just your opinion because otherwise it is you just saying so.

    The things is, if you read my post again, I explicitly say that carb manipulation(i.e periods of low carbs) is a key part of lossing weight. My problem with Atkins is it isn't low carb, its practically no carb, and its just a diet, which is only one half of the solution(or should be).

    A big reason for me gaining weight (when I say weight in this context I mean fat not muscle mass) was that with Atkins I lost a lot of muscle mass plus its not the type of diet that you can put up with for too long so before you know it your back to your old bad habits. This was about 10 years ago so maybe the whole Atkins approach has changed a bit since then.

    After a couple of years of yoyo'ing I read a book called burn the fat, feed the muscle, which I had much more success with in the long term. (Which also uses periods of low carbs).


  • #140
    WhyTheFace
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭WhyTheFace


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Dunno where you got that from, i didn't see anyone claiming it was optimum. Some guy is saying that you cant survive/thrive on low carb when this clearly isnt the case. He also said that carbs are essential for a balanced diet but wont say what this balance is.

    It is the case


  • #141
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    macnug wrote: »
    Well next time supply the scientific links instead of just your opinion because otherwise it is you just saying so.

    The things is, if you read my post again, I explicitly say that carb manipulation(i.e periods of low carbs) is a key part of lossing weight. My problem with Atkins is it isn't low carb, its practically no carb, and its just a diet, which is only one half of the solution(or should be).

    A big reason for me gaining weight (when I say weight in this context I mean fat not muscle mass) was that with Atkins I lost a lot of muscle mass plus its not the type of diet that you can put up with for too long so before you know it your back to your old bad habits. This was about 10 years ago so maybe the whole Atkins approach has changed a bit since then.

    After a couple of years of yoyo'ing I read a book called burn the fat, feed the muscle, which I had much more success with in the long term. (Which also uses periods of low carbs).

    Show me yours and i'll show you mine, since you made the claim first.

    What you are saying that doesn't add up though. Atkins is high in protein and that combined with strength work means you will not lose any muscle mass. You will lose muscle on any diet if you are doing 0 work to stimulate the muscle.

    I agree with you that diets should be sustainable for you though, ones that arent tend to see good weight loss followed by a crash and a period of weight gain.

    Finally, i can't help but expose myself - here's mine. Its not exactly what we were discussing but it does touch on it and also mentions athletic performance.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    WhyTheFace wrote: »
    It is the case

    Source please.


  • #143
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,173 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    WhyTheFace wrote: »
    It is the case

    I'll quote the forum charter here:

    Please get your facts straight
    A general rule that we all should try to live by, but invariably do not. However in this forum misinformation could have fairly tangible consequences. We will all make mistakes and we will all disagree with some things as the best approach, however if you post truly idiotic or dangerous advice it will be removed. In debates try to back your points with existing literature if available. Do not post unfounded allegations or state potential links if you cannot defend them.

    Please back up your assertions with some actual data.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #144
    kevpants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭kevpants


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    I am eating a ham and cheese French bread roll as I type this.

    Awesome. I had a chicken roll with coleslaw. My gut can leak all over the place for all I care. :)
    ford2600 wrote: »

    An elite racing cyclist can spare his glycogen stores and train his body to burn fat at higher rates. There are some elite TDF cyclist's doing this.

    Absolutely, this is my point. Sparing the best energy source for when its most needed is a pretty smart way of doing it.

    The gripe I have with the no carb thing is that it's just not presented honestly. Fat loss is a given, you're having to reach into your fat reserves for energy and it's undoing the damage you've done to yourself by getting fat in the first place. Awesome.

    The problem is it's not realistically viable as a long term solution despite a few outliers who stick to it just to prove a point.

    The way it's pushed is "I lost 58lbs in a month and my cholestrol is now -12" as the big headline and then it's "I didn't notice any real drop in strength" or "My performance hasn't suffered at all" or "I sometimes didn't faint".

    It's always about downplaying the obvious negative that it is BAD for performance. No one ever switches to no carb and gets better it's always that they didn't get as bad as you might have expected.

    In your own case ford2600 you have worked out a way of fueling yourself and these long static rides and been very specific in how you can optimise that. The problem is no one knew that until I challenged you. You just said not having carbs was amazeballs and you were excelling. So some well meaning schmuck reads that and heads out to do some interval runs after drinking Atomic Coffee or whatever it's called and nothing else and wonder why they woke up in a puddle of their own piss.

    That's why I was so animated about anyone portraying these diets as optimum. It's pretty hard to make them work long term, performance wise.


  • #145
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    In your own case ford2600 you have worked out a way of fueling yourself and these long static rides and been very specific in how you can optimise that. The problem is no one knew that until I challenged you. You just said not having carbs was amazeballs and you were excelling. So some well meaning schmuck reads that and heads out to do some interval runs after drinking Atomic Coffee or whatever it's called and nothing else and wonder why they woke up in a puddle of their own piss.

    That's why I was so animated about anyone portraying these diets as optimum. It's pretty hard to make them work long term, performance wise.[/QUOTE]

    Hold up there. My first post here it this thread, 44 I believe, gave a broad outline of my diet. Anyone who chose not to read the entire thread and jumped in, do I have to keep repeating my diet?

    I have never been over weight. I chose this way of living as I feel best on it. For me, there is no sacrifice; once I upped fat intake my interest in sugar switched off.

    Again it is not NO carb; I eat an enormous of leafy green veg, onions etc

    I'm not for a minute saying this diet suits everyone; it has to be well formulated and you need to be aware of pitfalls, sodium, too much protein, right fat mix etc.

    I believe it is optimum for me, at 38 and 25 years of training in various sports I have a fair idea what that is.



    Barry Murray of optimumnutrition for sport was BMC cycling nutritionist. So this has applications in elite cycling also. I'm a different animal to that though!


  • #146
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    "It's always about downplaying the obvious negative that it is BAD for performance. No one ever switches to no carb and gets better it's always that they didn't get as bad as you might have expected"

    It hasn't affected my performance on bike and has improved how I feel and recover of bike. There are many others reporting the same thing. Same performance better health and recovery.

    You are making a massive leap there.


  • #147
    kevpants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭kevpants


    ford2600 wrote: »
    It hasn't affected my performance on bike and has improved how I feel and recover of bike. There are many others reporting the same thing. Same performance better health and recovery.

    You are making a massive leap there.

    Do you not want to progress? Like is it possible for you to get better or are you just coping as I stated above?

    What I'm getting at here is that I've never seen someone who was already at a high level, switch to low/no carb and get better. Everyone seems to be just about hanging in there and it's seen as a big success. I really wouldn't be happy with that.


  • #148
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    kevpants wrote: »
    Do you not want to progress? Like is it possible for you to get better or are you just coping as I stated above?

    What I'm getting at here is that I've never seen someone who was already at a high level, switch to low/no carb and get better. Everyone seems to be just about hanging in there and it's seen as a big success. I really wouldn't be happy with that.


    Coping? How did you get that out of what I posted?

    I feel better, stronger, less bodyfat, less fatigue for no loss of performance on bike.

    I'm an Audax cyclist, being strong after 300km so you can get back out and do same again the day after at same speed is improvement. Not needing to eat on bike is improvement

    Ryan Sherlock is an elite racing cyclist and reports PB's since switching to high fat. He is not shy is talking or posting bout it, including here

    My health is better; hdl from 1.6 to 2.1
    Triglycerides have halved. These improvements are consistent with any trials I've read about with a well formulated LCHF diet.

    I haven't had any inflammatory markers checked but will in time

    As for sustainable there is no sacrifice and I've never enjoyed food more


  • #149
    macnug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭macnug


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Show me yours and i'll show you mine, since you made the claim first.

    What you are saying that doesn't add up though. Atkins is high in protein and that combined with strength work means you will not lose any muscle mass. You will lose muscle on any diet if you are doing 0 work to stimulate the muscle.

    I agree with you that diets should be sustainable for you though, ones that arent tend to see good weight loss followed by a crash and a period of weight gain.

    Finally, i can't help but expose myself - here's mine. Its not exactly what we were discussing but it does touch on it and also mentions athletic performance.

    But the Atkins never mentioned strength training (at least not 10 years ago) and although it may seem obvious now, to a normal joe-so so ten years ago it wasn't so much. Plus the way I felt on Atkins, I wouldn't have had the energy for it anyway. I wasn't making any claim, I was sharing a personal experience which for me was negative, how am I meant to back up personal experience?

    In the research you have provided it says "We suggest that LCD refers to a carbohydrate intake in the range of 50–150 g/d, which is above the level of generation of urinary ketones for most people.", which as I have said upteen times now I don't have a problem with, its the <20g/d I find may cause problems (just an opinion).


  • #150
    Amazingfun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    macnug wrote: »

    The things is, if you read my post again, I explicitly say that carb manipulation(i.e periods of low carbs) is a key part of lossing weight. My problem with Atkins is it isn't low carb, its practically no carb, and its just a diet, which is only one half of the solution(or should be).

    Again, like the apple myth, the above is shown to be false:(from the Atkins website):
    When a construction crew builds a house, do they start with the roof or the windows? Of course not. They begin with the foundation upon which everything else rests. When you begin Atkins in Phase 1, Induction, you switch to a new way of eating that will ultimately build the new you. In order to shift your body over to burning primarily fat—instead of carbs, in the form of glucose—for energy, you’ll consume only 20 grams of Net Carbs. You’ll be getting your carbs primarily, at least in Induction, from the leafy greens and other high-fiber, nonstarchy vegetables known as foundation vegetables. We recommend that at least 12 to 15 grams of those Net Carbs come from foundation veggies. This is the equivalent of approximately six cups of salad and two cups of cooked vegetables, depending upon the ones you select, each day, well in excess of the USDA’s recommended guidelines

    http://www.atkins.com/Program/Phase-1/How-to-Do-Induction-Right/What-Are-Foundation-Vegetables-.aspx


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    kevpants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭kevpants


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Coping? How did you get that out of what I posted?

    I feel better, stronger, less bodyfat, less fatigue for no loss of performance on bike.

    I'm an Audax cyclist, being strong after 300km so you can get back out and do same again the day after at same speed is improvement. Not needing to eat on bike is improvement

    No it's not. Cycling faster is. All you're describing is you coping with your diet. Do you honestly not see that your athletic performance staying static but you not eating on the bike isn't an improvement. It's just you managing to cope with a poor diet. If there are no PBs there's no improvement, sorry.

    I'm a powerlifter, if I switched to your diet and just went into the gym and squatted the same weight every session for a year and talked bout my improvements my training partners would have me sectioned.


Advertisement
Advertisement