On Aug 13, 9:43*am, Who_me? wrote:
On 13/08/11 10:08 PM, wrote:





On Aug 12, 8:00 pm, *wrote:
On 12/08/11 12:44 AM, wrote:

On Aug 11, 4:43 am, * *wrote:
On 11/08/11 1:01 AM, Billy wrote:

In ,
* * * * *wrote:

On 10/08/11 2:02 PM, swaggy wrote:

Bad diets may be effective for weight loss in the short term because you
will lose some extra fluid as well as some fat. However, the weight loss
is usually temporary because you re going to return to your old eating
habits when you go off the diet. In a few weeks, your weight will be
right back where it was before the diet.

There are no such things as bad diets, there are only bad dieters. All
diets that reduce calories work, though some are less healthy than others,
but they work.

Wrong.

Right.

Anything that you do that reduces your total calorie count, be it simply
reducing calories or increasing calories burned, will reduce weight.

Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and Health (Vintage)
by Gary Taubes

Not interested, as everyone has their version of what is good or bad..

I like a low carb (not ludicrously unhealthy like Atkins) diet, but that
does not mean that others have to agree with me.

What exactly is supposed to be ludicrously unhealthy about the Atkins
diet? * You say you eat high fat, so clearly that isn't what you've
got your shorts in a knot about.

It goes to ludicrous extremes, Ketosis is not necessary. On Atkins you lose
energy, both strength and endurance. Ask around any gym for the opinions of
those who have tried it. You can eat low carb without those side effects.

I don't have to ask around. *I know I feel fine and have lots of
energy doing Atkins. *In fact, I feel better than I do when eating
* a typical diet high in carbs which is what makes me feel
tired and sluggish. *Some people may be able to do LC and
* have success without starting out
at 20g a day. *But many others will not and Atkins has been
proven to work for many people. *It's worked *for me and
many others here over the years.

My shorts are not knotted, I am simply a realist.

Did you ever even do Atkins or just rely on heresay?

I tried Atkins for several months - I lost strength, endurance and muscle
mass from the start, as soon as ketosis started, but I persevered. I was
constantly tired during workouts and so have most other people reported who
in my experience have tried Atkins and are involved in sports or are gym
regulars. There have been many similar reports here over the years and even
Atkins himself admitted that his diet was not ideal for someone who had a
career, sport or hobby that imposed a high regular demand for energy.

Why do you think that athletes "carb up" before competition?

Let's assume Atkins, at least when starting out and at the lowest
level of carbs, is not a good diet for those involved in sports or
endurance activities. The claim you made was that the Atkins
diet is "ludicrously unhealthy", with no qualifiers. Neither I nor
most of the folks here or in the world at large are doing endurance
excercise.

I'm telling you that from my personal experience it works fine.
I have more energy when on Atkins than I do eating a typical diet,
even when at induction level of carbs.
There have also been studies done over the years that show
that it works as well as or better than other diets and that
those on it have no apparent ill effects. In fact, their blood
pressure, lipid levels, etc are usually better than those on
other diets.






I'd venture to say that most people claiming to do
Atkins are not actually following the plan. *So, I
would not put much credence in casual comments
from people claiming to do Atkins without finding
out exactly what they are actually doing.

Nothing casual about my comments, I have tried Atkins, exactly as Atkins
taught and it was not a good diet. I went from Atkins to increased carbs,
basically cutting all processed carbs but not cutting back on carbs from
fresh food, even high carb fruit and vegetables. That worked - I have
energy and I maintain a very low body fat percentage.

The above would suggest that you don't know what Atkins is
about, because on Atkins you also go to increased carbs. That
is the very essence of the plan. Depending on your metabolism
you could be as high as 100g a day of carbs in Atkins maintenance.




I use an oximeter and I have tested the blood oxygen levels of people in
ketosis and they drop back four or five percent over those who have the
minimum necessary amount of carbohydrate in their diet.

The minimum necessary amount of carbs is probably close to
zero or people like the Intuit would not be surviving. BTW,
I would suspect their energy expeditures rival those of
you gym buddies.


The first thing
that happens when you become fatigued when working out is your blood oxygen
level drops - insufficient oxygen to meet muscle demand. People in Ketosis
start exercise the way fit people finish exercise.



How do you even know those people were in Ketosis?
Or that they were really doing Atkins correctly? Were
they all just starting Atkins and at 20g a day, or had
some of them reached maintenance?









I also eat high fat - it
is nonsense that consumed fat (calorie count aside) puts on more body fat
than any other form of calorific intake. I am the same weight as when I was
a very fit surfer in my late teens. I wear the same size clothes and can
still run a marathon in very close to the same time - and I am now in my
fifties.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You think just maybe genetics plays a role in that?

No, else my parents and siblings would not be fat - and they are FAT.

You have neither the exact genes of either parent, nor of
your siblings. * For genes to play a role in obesity, the fact
that you are not obese while apparently everyone else in
your immediate family is, proves nothing. *It's widely accepted
that genes do play a significant role in obesity.

Ah, I see, you are one of those people who twists and turns in discussion..
You suggested that genes had something to with my fitness - by implication
genetic traits. No, even identical twins do not have "exactly" the same
genes, but traits within families are normal. I can easily gain weight if I
allow myself to be indulgent, there is no magical gene in my makeup that
stops me from gaining weight. If I am preparing for a marathon I can gain
ten pounds in a very short time as I increase carbs in preparation. I lose
it very quickly, a lot during the run, the rest with a week or so afterward.


I don't see anything I suggested as twisting and turning. You are
implying
that what works for you should work for everyone. That
everyone can just as easily lose weight or stay at a desirable weight.
That genetics cannot make it a lot harder for some of us to either
lose
weight or keep it off. If you opened your eyes, it would not be hard
to see that is not the case. I've known people who could eat most
anything, not excercise beyond normal typical daily routines, and
stay thin. If I ate what they ate, I put on weight.






And again, it's incorrect for you to assume that because
* something works or doesn't work for you, that means
* everyone else has the same metabolism and their
body functions exactly the same.

I will assume that if the majority of people do exactly as I do, eat what I
eat, and exercise as I exercise they will end up at a fitness level close
to mine.

What works for the majority doesn't mean too much, does it?
That still could leave say 40% who it doesn't work for because
their bodies aren't built or don't work like yours.



I have done this several times, with various friends and with
girls with whom I have had a relationship. I have also experienced many,
many years of your sort of "it aint't my fault, it is my genes etc." from
overweight people when explaining their failure to be fit and healthy.

You apparently don't realize that their is plenty of mdeical evidence
that says genetics do play an important role in obesity. So, instead
of looking down at those people as failures in willpower, maybe
you should do some reading. I suspect that won't be happening
though, because it was already suggested to you that a good
place to start is the work by Gary Taubes, to which you replied:

"Not interested, as everyone has their version of what is good or bad.
"

Which explains a lot.





Metabolism is not fixed, it is the body's response to the demands made on
it and the amount an type of food available to it. With very few exceptions
if you have a slow metabolism it is because you are physically lazy.

According to you. Medical research would suggest otherwise.







I put weight on briefly in the eighties when I was in a relationship with a
girl who loved high carb foods and fanatically avoided all fats. The weight
came on quickly, and when I realised what had caused it and went back to
the high protein, high fat diet that I had previously favoured I lost it
just as quickly. I developed a diet that has kept me fit for decades, and
recently I have seen that it is very similar to the much vaunted Dr Dukan's
diet. Strange thing that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And of course there are other "realists" who would just as quickly
slam what you're doing too for so called "common sense" reasons
* just like you're doing with Atkins.

Not many seem to slam things that actually work without side effects.

Again, it's you who is claiming there are side effects to Atkins.
I've seen
no negative side effects and I actually do it. Nor for the most part,
have
I seen negative effects here in the newsgroup over the last 10 years
from others that are doing it. Yet I see Atkins slammed by you and
the media.




Look
at the current world wide response to the Dukan diet. Even if they do it is
little skin off my nose. I work in an area where I have input into diet and
training for a small number of people - they are the only ones who concern
me. They do not slam their new lifestyle.

Folks here mostly don't slam Atkins either, but you did.




Some overweight people will segue from diet to diet always looking for a
magic bullet. They will remain fat. The only magic bullet is willpower and
consistency.- Hide quoted text -


There you go again. Up on your high horse denying that genetics
plays a role. You claim
anyone who can't lose weight easily or remain trim like you as simply
having a willpower problem. While you think the Atkins diet is
ludicrous,
it in fact is not and was designed to directly address a big part of
that
problem. It's the only diet I know of where it drastically curbs your
appetite from the start. That is one of the purposes of getting into
ketosis. Now, which diet do you think is going to be easier for
people
to stay with? One where you feel hungry all the time or one where
you don't? And what makes the Atkins diet ludicrous for the people
who choose to do it and for whom it works? Let's not hear more
about endurance athletes, because clearly that's not 99% of those
doing Atkins.