Has just low-carb ever worked for anybody?

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:35:35 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

Most of us, me included, eventually seem to arrive at the conclusion that we
need to watch calories in order to lose weight very long term (beyond the
quick loss you get from just watching carbs the first 6 months or so).

I use low-carb to help reduce hunger and to keep my blood sugar under
control. It has benefits beyond weight loss.

I am curious, though. Is there anybody in the world who has ever gone from
very obese (say verging on or past 300 lb) to completely normal goal weight
by JUST reducing carbs and not minding calories at all?

Are plans, like Atkins, being deceptive when they talk about ketosis?

doug


My roommate has gone from 380# to 225# in the last 4 years. He went
on it about 6 mos after I did. I went from 270 to 195.
Long term, this is definitely the way to go. Stay thin, have good
cholesterol, good joint lubrication, and shiny hair. Gotta love this
diet.

Doug Lerner wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

In Atkins book, which I am looking over again even as I
write this, he says you can stay in ketosis a year or more.

He mentions the 6 month limit in every edition. Dr A *loved*
to go on and on about details and variations ...

Let's talk about this point some more.
First, in his NDR, 1999 edition, p. 309 there is this following Q&A:
Q. How long can a person be on 20 grams or less carbohydrates per day?
A. As long as that person remains overweight and feels well.

Like I wrote he *loves* to go on and on about variations.

Actually, it appears that Dr A never did learn much of the science
that drives his process. He used experimentation to determine a
process that is very far from obvious, published it starting in
1972, and never did figure out the finer points. Further, after his
1972 book came out he never again gathered tabular data and it
appears that he gradually lost touch with the results he had gathered
years before.

In the 1993 and 1999 editions the section on "reversal diet" mentions
that many people stayed on Induction long enouigh for their CCLL to
crash to zero, Eskimo/Inuit style. I've encountered a number of
people who made this mistake and suffered this result. And yet he
discusses staying low longer. Why? Because he was human and subject
to errors, that's why! In one section of the book he mentions the
6 month limit. In another section of the book he discusses not
following that limit. Clearly there's an error in the book. Since
this is a subject that Dr A disagrees with himself, no amount of
references within the holy bible of the book will help. You can
cite to me lines in the book allowing extending Induction past 6
months and I can cite to you lines in the book limiting to 6
months. Checkmate, the book does not work on this point. The book
is not the holy bible and doing battlling citations out of it is
a nonsense game. You full well know I can pull out as many citations
as you can; look for them and you'll find them just like you looked
for yours and you found them.

So enough BS mind games pretending the book is an infallible holy
bible already and look at the hard evidence in the real world.
There ARE people who have stayed at 20 and had their CCLL fall to
zero. There ARE people who've stayed around 48 months and had
their CCLL fall to zero. There ARE people who've stayed at 20
for years and NOT seen their CCLL fall to zero. What conclusion
can be drawn from these facts? Simple. Extending Induction past
6 months carries the risk of your CCLL crashing to zero and no one
can gauge what THEIR risk of it is. Denying the risk by digging
citations out of the book is a logical falacy called appeal to
authority and folks HAVE had their CCLL crash for doing that.
Extending Induction past 6 months is a risk, period. No one can
judge the size of the risk and the only way to tell you lost the
gamble is to get screwed by the mistake. That makes it and
extremely bad gamble. Playing Russian roullete is a similar
gamble. Well *that* trigger pull didn't kill me therefore the
*next* one will be safe also. Right, sure thing. In Russian
roulette the only way to know you lost is to wake up in the
afterlife. In extending Induction the only way to know you lost
is the see that your CCLL *already* crashed to zero.

Secondly, OWL is still ketosis, isn't it - even if it takes a
year or longer to lose the weight.
Where do you see a 6 month limit recommended on ketosis itself?

The logical falacy of the red herring argument. You have changed
the subject as a method of disproving an observed fact. It's a
nonsense argument that shows you aren't bothering to learn the
principles that Atkins works by.

For most people CCLL isn't 20. Doesn't matter that *your* CCLL
is 15. Since *your* CCLL is 15, you aren't subject to the danger
of staying at 20. Pretty simple that. Don't don't play the game
that every single possible level between 0 and CCLL has the exact
smae metabolic impact on everyone. That's simple-minded preconceived
notion irrational nonsense. Different intakes definiately produce
different results.

The *point* of CCLL is it avoids the risks of going lower. Many
folks stall at 20 but lose when they move up to CCLL. There is
the danger of CCLL crashing to zero staying at 20 yet that danger
goes to zero at CCLL.

Ketosis at CCLL is NOT the same as ketosis well below CCLL. That's
the principle. And it is the single most important concept in the
Atkins process phrased yet another way. With a CCLL of 15, your
lower is something different than someone with a CCLL of 50, but
the principle is the same.

Ketosis at CCLL is safe for many years running. The closer you are
to being out of ketosis, the less the body's defense mechanisms
work to adjust the metabolism. It's that same concept phrased yet
another way. For you with a CCLL of 15, you can stay at 15 for
years safely. NOT because it's 15, because it's your CCLL. For
me with a CCLL of 50, I can stay at 45-50 for years safely. Not
becuase it's 50, because it's my CCLL. For you you'd have to go
below 5 per day to trigger Eskimo mode because your CCLL is 15
(good luck acheiving 5 in a world where a cup of coffee is 0.5).
Me me I went at 30 and triggered Eskimo mode. Because I was eating
near half my CCLL so I triggered my body's defenses.

On 3/30/04 11:49 PM, in article
, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote:

Secondly, OWL is still ketosis, isn't it - even if it takes a
year or longer to lose the weight.
Where do you see a 6 month limit recommended on ketosis itself?

The logical falacy of the red herring argument. You have changed
the subject as a method of disproving an observed fact. It's a
nonsense argument that shows you aren't bothering to learn the
principles that Atkins works by.

There is nothing to be gaining by being insulting. My original subject was
just about ketosis - I quote:

In Atkins book, which I am looking over again even as I
write this, he says you can stay in ketosis a year or more.


I am asking a sincere question about ketosis. You say Atkins mentioned a 6
month limit in every edition.

Then when I point out a single quote that seemed to the contrary you talk
about "BS" and "mind games" and finally the paragraph above that accuses me
of using nonsense arguments and are not bothering to learn.

You are the one who seems to have gone off topic. I simply asked a question
about ketosis in general to start with and then you went off putting words
in my mouth.



doug

Doug Lerner wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

There is nothing to be gaining by being insulting. My original subject was
just about ketosis - I quote:

In Atkins book, which I am looking over again even as I
write this, he says you can stay in ketosis a year or more.

I am asking a sincere question about ketosis. You say Atkins mentioned a 6
month limit in every edition.

People still have their CCLL crash to zero from staying too low, no
matter that references to staying longer and risking that can be found
in the book. No matter that you didn't like the answer, the statement
stands: People still have their CCLL crash to zero from staying too
low.

Cling to the book all you like. The book has errors and this is one
of them. Since your CCLL is 15 you personally are not at risk for it
to happen without going so low items like coffee dominate your daily
count. Eating to CCLL avoids the danger of CCLL crashing to zero.