Atkins Diet

Lictor wrote:
But you live in a country where low carb is actually becoming the norm! So,
you are actually moving from one norm (industrialized version of the
traditionnal American diet) to another norm (low carb frenzy).

Actually, it's the opposite for me. As soon as low-carb became "the
norm", I stopped doing it grin. I was on a low-carb diet when
everyone was thinking "Ewww how can she THINK of having a chicken burger
without the bun, and choose salad instead of fried potatoes?"

Then, it got to the point where I no longer needed the low-carb diet,
and voila! It somehow gains popularity... cool trend *I* started, eh?
chuckle

Lictor wrote:
But you live in a country where low carb is actually becoming the norm! So,
you are actually moving from one norm (industrialized version of the
traditionnal American diet) to another norm (low carb frenzy).

Actually, it's the opposite for me. As soon as low-carb became "the
norm", I stopped doing it grin. I was on a low-carb diet when
everyone was thinking "Ewww how can she THINK of having a chicken burger
without the bun, and choose salad instead of fried potatoes?"

Then, it got to the point where I no longer needed the low-carb diet,
and voila! It somehow gains popularity... cool trend *I* started, eh?
chuckle

Lictor wrote:
You *reintroduce* them *selectively*. This is still a restriction. Control
of your carb intake is going to be monitored by a formula or some kind of
external signal, not by your own feelings. If you *stop* being on Atkins and
resume your old habits, you *will* regain your lost weight. So, you do have
to stay on Atkins for life. The fact that you won't eat the same Atkins on
induction and on the day of your death doesn't change the fact that you're
on it for life.

No diet continues to work when you go off it. Resume your old habits
after any kind of weight loss diet and you'll gain the weight back.
There is NO diet that, once a person has lost weight, allows them to
eat whatever they want, unrestricted, and not regain.

Atkins is a plan that lays out the transitions from starting to
ongoing weight loss, to maintenance. A lot of plans only detail
the weight loss phase and don't instruct on the sort of permanent
changes needed to keep weight off.

People who have not developed insulin resistance can go on some other
kind of plan for maintenance, but most people who turned to Atkins
did so because low-fat or only watching calories didn't work for them.

--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."

Lictor wrote:
You *reintroduce* them *selectively*. This is still a restriction. Control
of your carb intake is going to be monitored by a formula or some kind of
external signal, not by your own feelings. If you *stop* being on Atkins and
resume your old habits, you *will* regain your lost weight. So, you do have
to stay on Atkins for life. The fact that you won't eat the same Atkins on
induction and on the day of your death doesn't change the fact that you're
on it for life.

No diet continues to work when you go off it. Resume your old habits
after any kind of weight loss diet and you'll gain the weight back.
There is NO diet that, once a person has lost weight, allows them to
eat whatever they want, unrestricted, and not regain.

Atkins is a plan that lays out the transitions from starting to
ongoing weight loss, to maintenance. A lot of plans only detail
the weight loss phase and don't instruct on the sort of permanent
changes needed to keep weight off.

People who have not developed insulin resistance can go on some other
kind of plan for maintenance, but most people who turned to Atkins
did so because low-fat or only watching calories didn't work for them.

--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."

"Crafting Mom" wrote in message
...
Have you ever read about the maintenance phase of the Atkins process?
http://atkins.com

I read some. P2P is your friend when you want to read books you would not
buy anyway

Click on "How to do Atkins".

Be prepared to have some assumptions reversed :-)

I never said Atkins is extremelly bad or anything, I just said it's not
better than most diets, and diets as a whole tend to be bad.

There's a heck of a lot of carbs allowed in the maintenance phase.
For what it's worth, there's a lot of "freedom" in any type of diet.

I know that Maintenance (OWL IIRC) under Atkins is not like Induction. It's
less restrictive, but the restriction is still there. The freedom is always
relative. If you eat completely foreign food in a foreign place, you will be
in a tricky situation. If your confidence is high enough, you will manage it
as a temporary "slip', but this *will* throw some people off the diet. But
whatever you eat, you will still have that maximum amount of carbs you're
allowed to eat somewhere in your mind. If given the choice between the
greens and meat and the cake, you will pick the greens and meat, or you risk
getting off the diet. That's always relative freedom. Sure, you do have the
freedom to end the diet whenever you wish, at the cost of regaining the lost
pounds. But what kind of choice is that?

Atkins isn't God and he's not going to strike you dead if you put 4
cubes of sugar in your coffee. The choice is the users.

Well, the God in the Bible doesn't do that either. There is just a book
where it is written that he does strike people once every few centuries.
Yet, most catholics prefer not to sin. If the bible has proven anything,
it's that you do not actually have to punish people, just the promise that
they might be punished if they sin is enough. So, if you Sin according to
Atkins, you will regain the lost weight. That's plenty enough. The user is
not faced with putting 4 sugars in his coffee. He's faced with either
drinking his coffee as per Atkins or regaining all lost weight.

They are responsible for both the decision to, and the consequences of,
putting
anything they want in their mouth.

But the consequences are so terrible that noone is his right mind would face
them. One wonder why so many people actually do eventually face them and
fail their diet.

If one considers the "rules" of a diet burdensome, then yes, it can seem
like there is no "freedom". But if someone actually follows the
rules for a time and begins to see the point of the rules, then it's
like "Hey, sugar is not that big a deal for me!" (Once someone sees an
easily-recognizable benefit of cutting down on their sugar).

Yes, that's conditionning. The mind is a very powerful thing. After all, I
did manage to tune mine in such a way that it would convince my body that a
5000 calories treat was ok and not nauseating at all or anything and that I
could still be hungry a few hours after it. But after proper decontionning,
I can tell my body was litterally screaming for mercy not even halfway
through that. I doubt I would now be able to reach the 5000 mark willingly,
even with exercising all my willpower towards that goal; I would probably
throw up before that. Conditionning *is* more powerful than the conscious
mind, at least in that case.
Just like people in a Brave New World eventually thought that freedom was no
big deal for them either. Or like anorexic eventually think that *any* food
is a big deal for them, to such a point that they do not experience hunger
but intense nausea from a mere 800 calories a day. The mind is extremelly
powerful and plastic, so, yes, you can get people to accept about any kind
of rules, and they will come to take them for granted. It doesn't mean that
that conditionning is not conflicting with some stuff from the inner self.
That's why some people will go into an orgy of sugar after tasting just one
piece of that no big deal stuff... Beinge eating is exactly that, it's the
point of rupture between the real reality (potato chips do exist and they
taste good) and a self-inflicted conditionning (potato chips do not exist,
they're not even proper food, they taste awful).

When I was a child I had a "rule" of "don't drink gasoline", but now
that I'm a grown-up, I can see a lot of freedom resulting in not
drinking gasoline grin. Sure, it's restrictive, but I think I can
handle the deprivation ;-)

The difference is that gasoline is not food. For real, I mean. You can't
digest gasoline, and it's rather toxic and will make you ill. It doesn't
even taste good, for real. On the other hand, sugar, fats, food not
compatible with your blood type, or whatever your diet bans *are* food.
You're able to digest them, you're able to draw energy from them. And most
of them actually taste good.
So, if you were to snap from the conflict between your gasoline restriction
and your deep wish to drink gasoline, I doubt you would go on a full
gasoline binge. If you know any case of someone bingeing on gasoline, I
would be curious to read about it, I would bet it made the day of the
psychiatrist dealing with the case.
On the other hand, it's not uncommon for low fat or low carb people to snap
and binge on their "problem" food (cake, potato chips...). Actually,
snapping and bingeing is probably what ends most unsuccessful diets.

"Crafting Mom" wrote in message
...
Have you ever read about the maintenance phase of the Atkins process?
http://atkins.com

I read some. P2P is your friend when you want to read books you would not
buy anyway

Click on "How to do Atkins".

Be prepared to have some assumptions reversed :-)

I never said Atkins is extremelly bad or anything, I just said it's not
better than most diets, and diets as a whole tend to be bad.

There's a heck of a lot of carbs allowed in the maintenance phase.
For what it's worth, there's a lot of "freedom" in any type of diet.

I know that Maintenance (OWL IIRC) under Atkins is not like Induction. It's
less restrictive, but the restriction is still there. The freedom is always
relative. If you eat completely foreign food in a foreign place, you will be
in a tricky situation. If your confidence is high enough, you will manage it
as a temporary "slip', but this *will* throw some people off the diet. But
whatever you eat, you will still have that maximum amount of carbs you're
allowed to eat somewhere in your mind. If given the choice between the
greens and meat and the cake, you will pick the greens and meat, or you risk
getting off the diet. That's always relative freedom. Sure, you do have the
freedom to end the diet whenever you wish, at the cost of regaining the lost
pounds. But what kind of choice is that?

Atkins isn't God and he's not going to strike you dead if you put 4
cubes of sugar in your coffee. The choice is the users.

Well, the God in the Bible doesn't do that either. There is just a book
where it is written that he does strike people once every few centuries.
Yet, most catholics prefer not to sin. If the bible has proven anything,
it's that you do not actually have to punish people, just the promise that
they might be punished if they sin is enough. So, if you Sin according to
Atkins, you will regain the lost weight. That's plenty enough. The user is
not faced with putting 4 sugars in his coffee. He's faced with either
drinking his coffee as per Atkins or regaining all lost weight.

They are responsible for both the decision to, and the consequences of,
putting
anything they want in their mouth.

But the consequences are so terrible that noone is his right mind would face
them. One wonder why so many people actually do eventually face them and
fail their diet.

If one considers the "rules" of a diet burdensome, then yes, it can seem
like there is no "freedom". But if someone actually follows the
rules for a time and begins to see the point of the rules, then it's
like "Hey, sugar is not that big a deal for me!" (Once someone sees an
easily-recognizable benefit of cutting down on their sugar).

Yes, that's conditionning. The mind is a very powerful thing. After all, I
did manage to tune mine in such a way that it would convince my body that a
5000 calories treat was ok and not nauseating at all or anything and that I
could still be hungry a few hours after it. But after proper decontionning,
I can tell my body was litterally screaming for mercy not even halfway
through that. I doubt I would now be able to reach the 5000 mark willingly,
even with exercising all my willpower towards that goal; I would probably
throw up before that. Conditionning *is* more powerful than the conscious
mind, at least in that case.
Just like people in a Brave New World eventually thought that freedom was no
big deal for them either. Or like anorexic eventually think that *any* food
is a big deal for them, to such a point that they do not experience hunger
but intense nausea from a mere 800 calories a day. The mind is extremelly
powerful and plastic, so, yes, you can get people to accept about any kind
of rules, and they will come to take them for granted. It doesn't mean that
that conditionning is not conflicting with some stuff from the inner self.
That's why some people will go into an orgy of sugar after tasting just one
piece of that no big deal stuff... Beinge eating is exactly that, it's the
point of rupture between the real reality (potato chips do exist and they
taste good) and a self-inflicted conditionning (potato chips do not exist,
they're not even proper food, they taste awful).

When I was a child I had a "rule" of "don't drink gasoline", but now
that I'm a grown-up, I can see a lot of freedom resulting in not
drinking gasoline grin. Sure, it's restrictive, but I think I can
handle the deprivation ;-)

The difference is that gasoline is not food. For real, I mean. You can't
digest gasoline, and it's rather toxic and will make you ill. It doesn't
even taste good, for real. On the other hand, sugar, fats, food not
compatible with your blood type, or whatever your diet bans *are* food.
You're able to digest them, you're able to draw energy from them. And most
of them actually taste good.
So, if you were to snap from the conflict between your gasoline restriction
and your deep wish to drink gasoline, I doubt you would go on a full
gasoline binge. If you know any case of someone bingeing on gasoline, I
would be curious to read about it, I would bet it made the day of the
psychiatrist dealing with the case.
On the other hand, it's not uncommon for low fat or low carb people to snap
and binge on their "problem" food (cake, potato chips...). Actually,
snapping and bingeing is probably what ends most unsuccessful diets.

"Crafting Mom" wrote in message
...
Have you ever read about the maintenance phase of the Atkins process?
http://atkins.com

I read some. P2P is your friend when you want to read books you would not
buy anyway

Click on "How to do Atkins".

Be prepared to have some assumptions reversed :-)

I never said Atkins is extremelly bad or anything, I just said it's not
better than most diets, and diets as a whole tend to be bad.

There's a heck of a lot of carbs allowed in the maintenance phase.
For what it's worth, there's a lot of "freedom" in any type of diet.

I know that Maintenance (OWL IIRC) under Atkins is not like Induction. It's
less restrictive, but the restriction is still there. The freedom is always
relative. If you eat completely foreign food in a foreign place, you will be
in a tricky situation. If your confidence is high enough, you will manage it
as a temporary "slip', but this *will* throw some people off the diet. But
whatever you eat, you will still have that maximum amount of carbs you're
allowed to eat somewhere in your mind. If given the choice between the
greens and meat and the cake, you will pick the greens and meat, or you risk
getting off the diet. That's always relative freedom. Sure, you do have the
freedom to end the diet whenever you wish, at the cost of regaining the lost
pounds. But what kind of choice is that?

Atkins isn't God and he's not going to strike you dead if you put 4
cubes of sugar in your coffee. The choice is the users.

Well, the God in the Bible doesn't do that either. There is just a book
where it is written that he does strike people once every few centuries.
Yet, most catholics prefer not to sin. If the bible has proven anything,
it's that you do not actually have to punish people, just the promise that
they might be punished if they sin is enough. So, if you Sin according to
Atkins, you will regain the lost weight. That's plenty enough. The user is
not faced with putting 4 sugars in his coffee. He's faced with either
drinking his coffee as per Atkins or regaining all lost weight.

They are responsible for both the decision to, and the consequences of,
putting
anything they want in their mouth.

But the consequences are so terrible that noone is his right mind would face
them. One wonder why so many people actually do eventually face them and
fail their diet.

If one considers the "rules" of a diet burdensome, then yes, it can seem
like there is no "freedom". But if someone actually follows the
rules for a time and begins to see the point of the rules, then it's
like "Hey, sugar is not that big a deal for me!" (Once someone sees an
easily-recognizable benefit of cutting down on their sugar).

Yes, that's conditionning. The mind is a very powerful thing. After all, I
did manage to tune mine in such a way that it would convince my body that a
5000 calories treat was ok and not nauseating at all or anything and that I
could still be hungry a few hours after it. But after proper decontionning,
I can tell my body was litterally screaming for mercy not even halfway
through that. I doubt I would now be able to reach the 5000 mark willingly,
even with exercising all my willpower towards that goal; I would probably
throw up before that. Conditionning *is* more powerful than the conscious
mind, at least in that case.
Just like people in a Brave New World eventually thought that freedom was no
big deal for them either. Or like anorexic eventually think that *any* food
is a big deal for them, to such a point that they do not experience hunger
but intense nausea from a mere 800 calories a day. The mind is extremelly
powerful and plastic, so, yes, you can get people to accept about any kind
of rules, and they will come to take them for granted. It doesn't mean that
that conditionning is not conflicting with some stuff from the inner self.
That's why some people will go into an orgy of sugar after tasting just one
piece of that no big deal stuff... Beinge eating is exactly that, it's the
point of rupture between the real reality (potato chips do exist and they
taste good) and a self-inflicted conditionning (potato chips do not exist,
they're not even proper food, they taste awful).

When I was a child I had a "rule" of "don't drink gasoline", but now
that I'm a grown-up, I can see a lot of freedom resulting in not
drinking gasoline grin. Sure, it's restrictive, but I think I can
handle the deprivation ;-)

The difference is that gasoline is not food. For real, I mean. You can't
digest gasoline, and it's rather toxic and will make you ill. It doesn't
even taste good, for real. On the other hand, sugar, fats, food not
compatible with your blood type, or whatever your diet bans *are* food.
You're able to digest them, you're able to draw energy from them. And most
of them actually taste good.
So, if you were to snap from the conflict between your gasoline restriction
and your deep wish to drink gasoline, I doubt you would go on a full
gasoline binge. If you know any case of someone bingeing on gasoline, I
would be curious to read about it, I would bet it made the day of the
psychiatrist dealing with the case.
On the other hand, it's not uncommon for low fat or low carb people to snap
and binge on their "problem" food (cake, potato chips...). Actually,
snapping and bingeing is probably what ends most unsuccessful diets.

Lictor wrote:

Well, the God in the Bible doesn't do that either. There is just a book
where it is written that he does strike people once every few centuries.
Yet, most catholics prefer not to sin.

Well, I am a Christian, just not catholic. But I think you did miss the
point of my paragraph.

Yes, that's conditionning. The mind is a very powerful thing.

It also can convince people that cultural traditions are more important
than well-being. Some people, believe it or not, are not on a "weird
diet" for the sake of simply getting their number on a scale and losing
weight, some people actually do have biological issues with certain
types of ingredients.

If one wants to limit their friends to "only those whose bodies can
tolerate the same things I can", well, then that's their loss. I have
friends who eat all kinds of stuff, and I have eaten *with* them, and
abstained from food around them, as they have around me (sometimes they
are simply NOT HUNGRY .. what am I going to do? say, "I don't care if
you're about to barf if you eat another bite, show me some cultural
savvy and EAT IT!?")

I happen to have friends who are on diets with everything from vegan to
indian, to kosher to swine on a spit, to low-carb, to high-carb, and
yet, we all manage to co-exist at the same get-togethers where food is
served. Go figure.

Lictor wrote:

Well, the God in the Bible doesn't do that either. There is just a book
where it is written that he does strike people once every few centuries.
Yet, most catholics prefer not to sin.

Well, I am a Christian, just not catholic. But I think you did miss the
point of my paragraph.

Yes, that's conditionning. The mind is a very powerful thing.

It also can convince people that cultural traditions are more important
than well-being. Some people, believe it or not, are not on a "weird
diet" for the sake of simply getting their number on a scale and losing
weight, some people actually do have biological issues with certain
types of ingredients.

If one wants to limit their friends to "only those whose bodies can
tolerate the same things I can", well, then that's their loss. I have
friends who eat all kinds of stuff, and I have eaten *with* them, and
abstained from food around them, as they have around me (sometimes they
are simply NOT HUNGRY .. what am I going to do? say, "I don't care if
you're about to barf if you eat another bite, show me some cultural
savvy and EAT IT!?")

I happen to have friends who are on diets with everything from vegan to
indian, to kosher to swine on a spit, to low-carb, to high-carb, and
yet, we all manage to co-exist at the same get-togethers where food is
served. Go figure.

"Crafting Mom" wrote in message
...
Actually, it's the opposite for me. As soon as low-carb became "the
norm", I stopped doing it grin.

Ahhhh, so, you're among these people who just love to go against the trend,
just for kick of not being like others? I can relate to that, like when I
told my boss I was bisexual just because I knew he was homophobic. Then,
just being willingly in opposition to the norm gives enough momentum to do
whatever you want. Though one might wonder if always going against the norm
is really a way to experience true freedom. Besides, going daringly enough
against the norm usually gains you enough popularity to socialize easily
enough...
But the problem with most people and peer presure is that peers usually do
not even have to make it felt. Actually, in most cases, peers do not really
care one way or another. Peer presure is mostly self inflicted, because
*you* feel *you* do not fit unless you do as others - reguardless of what
others actually think. Yes, it's stupid and untrue. But like paranoia, the
fact that it's all in your head doesn't change how you experience it.