so frustrated!

In article .com,
"Doug Freyburger" wrote:

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:


snipped rest of post
I have stored this to my nutrition file for later reference. :-)

Since I've been "stalled" for 3 months, I have to assume that the upper
range for maintenance at this moment is 15 to 20. No ketones at all for
the past month until just the past few days, but I've now cut carbs to
either 1 can of spinach or 1 can of string beans per day and a small
amount of mushrooms.

Traded out a bunch of protein for fat calories and my weight started
FINALLY dropping again about 5 days ago with a trace to moderate urine
ketones.

Diet looks like this right now: Meal 1, 8 oz. sirloin steak or lean
chicken, grilled and served with 2 tbs. butter for dipping. 1/2 can
spinach or string beans with mushrooms served with whatever butter was
left over from the meat.

Meal 2, see above.

Meal 3, 2.5 oz. cream cheese with 2 tbs. of pace mild chunky picante
sauce.

Satisfying and I can don't always finish the 8 oz. of meat since I get
stuffed easily. (who needs WLS to shrink the stomach? G).

Anyway, I've been losing 1/2 lb. per day ATM but will not report true
success at breaking that damned stall until I drop below 220. Right now
I'm at 225 and falling.

I appreciate the advice but you can understand how I feel after
experiencing a 90 day frickin' stall! If I stall again, then I'll
increase carbs.

I did do a carb re-feed last week and the previous week before going on
the higher fat tweaking so that might very well have helped, but I
gained 4 lbs. doing it. The re-feed lasted 2 weeks and I still stayed
around 1,500 KC per day.

Sux to be me, but I'll make it. ;-)

I also upped the daily lifecycle ride to level 7 which I'm sure is
helping..... Once I hit level 10 and can endure that for 30 minutes,
I'll be switching to the stairmaster.

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

joshv wrote:

I am just not understanding how eating more carbs is going to get one
back in to ketosis.

Understanding or not is irrelevant. Seriously.
There are folks who don't understand howe the
seasons work but autumn still follows summer.
Eating more carbs does in effect get folks back
into ketosis, and it is a strategy included in
the book.

Ketosis is what happens when your body runs out of
carbs.

Incorrect, and partially for the reason you cite.
The body never does run out of carbs because carbs
are synethized from other fuels.

Ketosis is what happens when your body cuts its
insulin level enough to switch to burning fat as the
majority fuel AND also when its glucagon level is
high enough that fats are converted to ketones.
Eat sufficiently low carbs for sufficiently long
and the body does in fact fall out of ketosis.
Go test an Inuit for ketones some time, one of the
ones who still live the traditional hunting lifestyle
on the ice. They are not in ketosis and they do not
eat enough dietary carbs. They break your simplified
theory.

The solution is increase fat consumption and decrease protein intake,
as Atkins suggests (fat fast).

Incorrect. Read again the qualifications for the
fat fast. It is for people who failed to get into
ketosis at 20, and that is a very different thing than
being for people who used to be able to get into
ketosis at 20 and no longer can.

The way this stuff works isn't easy to understand.
You have preconceived notions about it. You are
clinging to those preconceived notions and looking
to justify your statements. Go test an Inuit for
ketones. Better yet, follow the directions for OWL
in the first place and never need to deal with the
situation.

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:

Traded out a bunch of protein for fat calories and my weight started
FINALLY dropping again about 5 days ago with a trace to moderate urine
ketones.

That is my standard issue stall busting method.

I appreciate the advice but you can understand how I feel after
experiencing a 90 day frickin' stall! If I stall again, then I'll
increase carbs.

Right. You feel frustrated that less-is-more did not
work and you are unwilling to step out in faith. You
didn't do it on day 15 following Dr A's directions, so
why should you try something wierd sounding that you
read on the Internet.

I did do a carb re-feed last week and the previous week before going on
the higher fat tweaking so that might very well have helped

Depends on how much you carbed up whether you have already
acheived your end of correcting your CCLL. Two ways to
find out - OWL or Inuit mode.

but I gained 4 lbs. doing it.

Correction - You retained 4 pounds of water doing it. If
you do not learn the difference between water retention
and fat gain you're in for a lifetime of self-imposed
frustration. Think aobut how much water you lost during
Induction. Was it at least 4?

In article .com,
"Doug Freyburger" wrote:

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:

Traded out a bunch of protein for fat calories and my weight started
FINALLY dropping again about 5 days ago with a trace to moderate urine
ketones.

That is my standard issue stall busting method.

I appreciate the advice but you can understand how I feel after
experiencing a 90 day frickin' stall! If I stall again, then I'll
increase carbs.

Right. You feel frustrated that less-is-more did not
work and you are unwilling to step out in faith. You
didn't do it on day 15 following Dr A's directions, so
why should you try something wierd sounding that you
read on the Internet.

I did do a carb re-feed last week and the previous week before going on
the higher fat tweaking so that might very well have helped

Depends on how much you carbed up whether you have already
acheived your end of correcting your CCLL. Two ways to
find out - OWL or Inuit mode.

but I gained 4 lbs. doing it.

Correction - You retained 4 pounds of water doing it. If
you do not learn the difference between water retention
and fat gain you're in for a lifetime of self-imposed
frustration. Think aobut how much water you lost during
Induction. Was it at least 4?


I lost the original 4 lbs. gained plus 2 more.

Water retention is not an issue.

I take Torosemide PRN.
I can lose 3 lbs. in 5 hours. ;-)

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Understanding or not is irrelevant. Seriously.
There are folks who don't understand howe the
seasons work but autumn still follows summer.

Wonderful, not sure what that has to do with anything.

Eating more carbs does in effect get folks back
into ketosis, and it is a strategy included in
the book.

Atkins says it, so it must be so.

Incorrect, and partially for the reason you cite.
The body never does run out of carbs because carbs
are synethized from other fuels.

No, correct, the body generates ketone bodies as a result of the
metabolic pathways that are activated by carbohydrate starvation.

Ketosis is what happens when your body cuts its
insulin level enough to switch to burning fat as the
majority fuel AND also when its glucagon level is
high enough that fats are converted to ketones.
Eat sufficiently low carbs for sufficiently long
and the body does in fact fall out of ketosis.

I think we agree on that.

Go test an Inuit for ketones some time, one of the
ones who still live the traditional hunting lifestyle
on the ice. They are not in ketosis and they do not
eat enough dietary carbs. They break your simplified
theory.

Unfortunately, I do not have any Inuit handy. Perhaps you could give
me a reference that backs your claims? Everything I can find backs
mine, ketosis is the result of carbohydrate starvation:

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbioc...1/fatcatab.htm
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=274
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis



The solution is increase fat consumption and decrease protein intake,
as Atkins suggests (fat fast).

Incorrect. Read again the qualifications for the
fat fast. It is for people who failed to get into
ketosis at 20, and that is a very different thing than
being for people who used to be able to get into
ketosis at 20 and no longer can.

I would suggest that people who are not in ketosis have adapted to
burning their ketones instead of dumping them in to their blood stream
and urine, or their body has downregulated these pathways to produce
only as much energy as they need in the form of ketone bodies. Is
there something wrong with that?

The way this stuff works isn't easy to understand.
You have preconceived notions about it.

Preconceived? I've read rather widely on the topic. I don't know that
my notions of ketosis are any less informed than yours.

You are
clinging to those preconceived notions and looking
to justify your statements.

? If you are willing to give me some references that explain your point
scientifically, I am more than willing to stop "clinging".

Go test an Inuit for
ketones.

Unfortunately not practical. Perhaps you could provide some references
which substantiate your claims.

Better yet, follow the directions for OWL
in the first place and never need to deal with the
situation.

joshv wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Understanding or not is irrelevant. Seriously.
There are folks who don't understand howe the
seasons work but autumn still follows summer.

Wonderful, not sure what that has to do with anything.

Understanding is not relevant to stuff that actually
happens. I offered a simple well-known example of
the trend. You wrote that you did not understand.
Understanding or not is irrelevant.

Eating more carbs does in effect get folks back
into ketosis, and it is a strategy included in
the book.

Atkins says it, so it must be so.

Incorrect. If it actually happens in real life and
if Dr A mentioned how to deal with it, his directions
are a good starting point. The fact is Dr A got
stuff wrong sometimes - his 2002 book claimed that
eating less carbs gives more loss which is easily
seen to be wrong in very many people. It is also
true that Dr A's writing skills were not up to the
task of describing the process he designed and as a
result there are parts of his books that are regularly
misunderstood. Nonetheless the process he designed
is better than most people imagine.

None of that is relevant to actual experimental and
experiental results. I did end up in what I call
Inuit mode, I did read though the book to see if others
had and Dr A had any advice, I did find the reversal
diet in the 1993 edition, I did increase carbs, I did
get back into ketosis. I also did not follow his
exact instructions but did something less extreme. I
tried a year of maintenance and after that I got into
ketosis just fine.

Incorrect, and partially for the reason you cite.
The body never does run out of carbs because carbs
are synethized from other fuels.

No, correct, the body generates ketone bodies as a result of the
metabolic pathways that are activated by carbohydrate starvation.

Again missing the long term truth by presenting the
short term truth. Since it happens early on then it
must happen forever, right? Wrong. Consider all the
wierd stuff that happens to assorted people during
Induction. Lots of folks conclude they are normal
because they've never seen anything else. Folks
expect dark tests on the stick to last forever, the
headaches or various other detox symptoms. Folks see
the water loss aspects of Induction and hope it to
continue forever. It doesn't. The simple fact is
the body adjusts on various time scales. Sometimes
that adjustment is beneficial like the completion of
detox after Induction. Sometimes it is not (for fat
loss) like CCLL falling to zero.

And so here you are pointing out what happens
post-Induction and suggesting that it goes on forever.
In spite of the fact that it doesn't in Inuits, it
didn't in me, it didn't in enough people that Dr A
devised the reversal diet and so on. The body
adjusts based on how far its situation is from the
"normal". One of the principles of the Atkins process
is that loss is best at CCLL because it's a spot close
enough to "normal" that the body does not mount
defenses.

Ketosis is what happens when your body cuts its
insulin level enough to switch to burning fat as the
majority fuel AND also when its glucagon level is
high enough that fats are converted to ketones.
Eat sufficiently low carbs for sufficiently long
and the body does in fact fall out of ketosis.

I think we agree on that.

It is an observed fact. By the way, it is not a
guarantee that folks will all go into Inuit mode. All
Inuits do, all folks who have adopted the all raw/rare
meat diet have, but we're not talking about actual
zero dietary carbs here. The level of 20 is enough
that Dr A didn't see problems until 6 months past the
point of no longer having "a lot" to lose so he put
that 6 month limit in there. I've encountered someone
who didn't go into Inuit mode until month 48 and some
who stay at 20 longer than that without hitting Inuit
mode. But I assure you you do not want to end up in
Inuit mode. It sucks.

Go test an Inuit for ketones some time, one of the
ones who still live the traditional hunting lifestyle
on the ice. They are not in ketosis and they do not
eat enough dietary carbs. They break your simplified
theory.

Unfortunately, I do not have any Inuit handy. Perhaps you could give
me a reference that backs your claims? Everything I can find backs
mine, ketosis is the result of carbohydrate starvation:

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbioc...1/fatcatab.htm
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=274
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis

None 6 months and more past the point of no longer having
100+ to lose, right?

The reference is in the 1993 edition. You will respond
that it isn't a scientifically valid study. Acknowledged.
Does that make it a lie? Dr A started out by doing
tabular statistical studies. The AMA would not publish
his data. In the end Dr A gave up gathering data and
bragged about being a clinician not a scientist. I wish
I had his tabular data and I wonder if it still exists.

Still, if you will only accept published data I invite
you to conduct such a study. Start with 100 each folks
with 100+ to lose, 50-100 to lose, under 50 to lose. Put
a third on the 4-phases. Put a third on forever Induction.
Put a third on Inuit-style all raw/rare meat. Track their
loss rates and their ketosis for 5 years. Publish that
data. I would welcome it since it would beat any data
currently available.

The solution is increase fat consumption and decrease protein intake,
as Atkins suggests (fat fast).

Incorrect. Read again the qualifications for the
fat fast. It is for people who failed to get into
ketosis at 20, and that is a very different thing than
being for people who used to be able to get into
ketosis at 20 and no longer can.

I would suggest that people who are not in ketosis have adapted to
burning their ketones instead of dumping them in to their blood stream
and urine, or their body has downregulated these pathways to produce
only as much energy as they need in the form of ketone bodies. Is
there something wrong with that?

Health wise there is nothing wrong with being out of
ketosis not losing stored fat. For someone who does it
becaus ethey wish to lose stored fat it is indeed a
bit of a problem. Falling out of ketosis and no longer
losing any stored fat no matter how low carb you try to
go is certainly something wrong.

It's interesting that folks who follow the 4 phases on
schedule never have this problem. The 4 phase process is
designed with a lot more factors in mind than most ever
realize. One among the many is avoiding falling out of
ketosis and hitting a stall that would last for years.

In article .com,
"Doug Freyburger" wrote:

It's interesting that folks who follow the 4 phases on
schedule never have this problem. The 4 phase process is
designed with a lot more factors in mind than most ever
realize. One among the many is avoiding falling out of
ketosis and hitting a stall that would last for years.


The people that follow the 4 phase plan have patience. ;-)

That is not a common human virtue. lol

At least I think I've broken this frickin' stall!

Let's hear it for cream cheese with picante sauce.
It's quite tasty, and satisfying......
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's interesting that folks who follow the 4 phases on
schedule never have this problem. The 4 phase process is
designed with a lot more factors in mind than most ever
realize. One among the many is avoiding falling out of
ketosis and hitting a stall that would last for years.

The people that follow the 4 phase plan have patience. ;-)

I don't think it's patience. After all the actual loss rates
are better for those who follow the 4 phases than for those
who stay low according to Dr A and since staying low
causes stalls taht are cured by moving on to OWL I think
any method that gathered scientifically acceptable data on
the topic .

I think the virtue in question is faith. It is NOT obvious
that the 4 phases should work better than a fad diet
variation. Folks see that low carb means loss, so they
WANT lowER carb to mean better loss. In actual fact, the
4 phase plan works better for those willing to do it. Loss
rates are better, stalls are less frequent, dropout is
lower. But it takes a major leap of faith to move on to
25 on day 15 just because the regular directions tell you
to.

That is not a common human virtue. lol

Very true. Read this newsgroup. Read any support board.
Very very few people are willing to step out in faith
and follow the actual directions. Folks dig through the
book to find statements like there isn't any health risk
to staying low and they conclude they have found the
secret. Folks ignore entire chapters because those
chapters don't say the obvious. Few step out in faith.

At least I think I've broken this frickin' stall!

Excellent.