A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why Bad Diets Are Bad?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 13th, 2011, 01:00 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

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.

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

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.

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.


  #2  
Old August 13th, 2011, 01:08 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Aug 12, 8:00*pm, Who_me? 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'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.



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.

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 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.
  #3  
Old August 13th, 2011, 02:43 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

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?


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.

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 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.




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.


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. 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.

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.


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. 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.

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.

  #4  
Old August 13th, 2011, 06:21 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
BlueBrooke[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:43:41 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

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.


Didn't I just read, from you: "There are no such things as bad diets,
there are only bad dieters." ?

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.


This right here shows you did *not* do Atkins as written.
  #5  
Old August 13th, 2011, 09:25 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

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.
  #6  
Old August 14th, 2011, 01:26 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 14/08/11 3:21 AM, BlueBrooke wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:43:41 +1000,
wrote:

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.


Didn't I just read, from you: "There are no such things as bad diets,
there are only bad dieters." ?


From the point of view of losing weight, yes. I also noted at the same
time that some diets are less healthy than others. Atkins like any diet
that cuts calories, works. From a general health and fitness point of view
it sucks.


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.


This right here shows you did *not* do Atkins as written.



Er, um - Bull****.

  #7  
Old August 14th, 2011, 01:44 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Aug 13, 8:26*pm, Who_me? wrote:
On 14/08/11 3:21 AM, BlueBrooke wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:43:41 +1000,
wrote:


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.


Didn't I just read, from you: *"There are no such things as bad diets,
there are only bad dieters." *?


*From the point of view of losing weight, yes. I also noted at the same
time that some diets are less healthy than others. Atkins like any diet
that cuts calories, works. From a general health and fitness point of view
it sucks.



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.


This right here shows you did *not* do Atkins as written.


Er, um - Bull****.


I'd say it,s you who is full of BS. You come in to a low carb
newsgroup
and proclaim that the Atkins diet, which is probably the most popluar
and successful low carb diet, is "ludicroulsy unhealthy". Then you
stated:

" 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. "

I've never heard of the Dukan diet before. Never seen it mentioned
here by anyone that I can recall in over 10 years in this low carb
group. . So, unlike you, who rejected a suggestion to take a look
at some of Gary Taubes work, I decided to take a look at what
the Dukan diet entails:

"http://www.dukandiet.com/The-Dukan-Diet/4-Phases

Phase 1 - ATTACK
The Attack phase consists of pure protein and creates a kick-start to
the diet. During this phase, you can eat 68 high-protein foods that
produce immediate and noticeable weight loss."

You claimed the Atkins diet was unhealthy because it produced ketosis.
What the hell do you think the above will produce?


"Phase 2 - CRUISE
The Cruise phase adds 32 vegetables and will take you to your True
Weight. You will gradually but steadily lose weight by alternating
Pure Protein days and Protein + Vegetables days. The average length of
this phase is based on a schedule of 3 days for each pound you want to
lose.

Phase 3 - CONSOLIDATION
During this time you are at your most vulnerable, as the body has a
tendency to quickly regain lost pounds. The Consolidation Phase is
designed to prevent the rebound effect by gradually returning
previously forbidden foods and allowing for two “celebration" meals
per week.

Phase 4 - PERMANENT STABILIZATION
This phase is the rest of your life! You have learned how to eat
healthily in the previous phases and have developed a pattern to
follow."

Sounds like another guy with a plan similar to Atkins. In fact, it's
MORE
radical than Atkins, as it starts out at zero carbs. Then, like
Atkins,
it introduces more vegetable in the next phase, increasing the carb
level. Yet you have
the nerve to call the Atkins plan "ludicroulsy unhealthy". And you
say
you believe fat is good, even beneficial, yet you endorse this guys
diet that is pure protein at the start.

In short, I think you're just plain clueless and don't know what
you're talking about.





  #8  
Old August 14th, 2011, 02:53 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 14/08/11 6:25 AM, wrote:
On Aug 13, 9:43 am, 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.


It IS ludicrously unhealthy. Any diet that leaves a "healthy and fit"
person feeling tired is not good.


I'm telling you that from my personal experience it works fine.


From your experience and using your standards it might. For a person who
interested in maintaining a high level of fitness it is a joke.

I have more energy when on Atkins than I do eating a typical diet,
even when at induction level of carbs.


I can believe that, as most overweight people are legarthic so any
improvement would seem beneficial. You having more energy has nothing to do
with a person who is not dieting to lose weight, but to improve health and
fitness. Such people have an initial high energy level that is drastically
reduced by the extremely low carb recommendations of Atkins. Even after the
Ketosis stage Atkins does not supply sufficient carbs to allow body
maintenance for sports people, athletes and body builders.

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.


There are studies that supposedly prove the earth to be flat. The high
incidence of kidney problems alone among those who rigidly adhere to Atkins
should be enough to warn most people off.

In fact, their blood
pressure, lipid levels, etc are usually better than those on
other diets.


Nonsense, absolute nonsense.


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.


A minor increase and I did follow the plan exactly. It isn't worth trying
anything if you don't do it properly.

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.


For what I needed the recommended carb allowances were nowhere near enough.



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.


More nonsense. The Inuit are a terribly unhealthy people, they do NOT have
a good life span and like many people in India experience a great many near
chronic health problems. Have you ever been among them?

Both extremes are unhealthy, extremely high card or extreme;y low.

BTW,
I would suspect their energy expeditures rival those of
you gym buddies.


That is almost comical. Once over forty they can barely move without
effort. I had a lot to do with them when I lived in Canada as a child.



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?


If you are familiar with Atkins, you must surely recognise the breath smell
of a person in Ketosis. Plus they were testing and noting that they were in
ketosis. Some BGL meters will test for Ketosis as well as blood sugar,. an
the usual standby are the Pee sticks. I use a BGL meter that measures both
BG and 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 work in this field, I was in close contact with many of them, charting
their progress. The people who I was working with (and still am) are
athletes with diabetes, not just body builders.



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.



A suggestion that my results were influenced by genetics, then when
pointing out that my family was predisposd to weight gain was then
basically thrown away as "genetics don't really mean much".

That is twisting and turning.


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.


My eyes are wide open at all times, so much in fact that I do things like
test major diets to determine their effect on me. I then write about them
in conventional media.

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.


Once your metabolism is high - as a result of a high activity level, you
can do that. For a time. Once the activity level declines, the metabolism
drops and the weight piles on.



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.


Still more nonsense. If anyone mirrors me they will end up fit and healthy
UNLESS they are truly one of those microscopically small number of people
who have a genuine medical reason for a locked metabolism.



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.


Evidence no, desperate theory yes. It is more nurture than nature, fat
people who adopt very often raise fat kids.


So, instead
of looking down at those people as failures in willpower, maybe
you should do some reading.


I have a personal library related to health, diet and nutrition that many
small communities woud envy and I have read them all. This is my field and
I buy every new book that comes out in those areas.


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.


True. They do and Gary Taubes in not an exception. I have his book "The
Diet Delusion" among others and there is little new in it. He is a small
player in a big field. We actually have very similar backgrounds, but we do
not reach the same conclusions. He theorises, I actually test things at a
personal level and observe others who do the same. I have never met a
single true athlete who hasn't found Atkin's levels of carb intake to be
debilitating. As you pointed out earlier, a fat person who loses weight
will feel better and become enthused, while a truly fit person on the same
regimen will experience the opposite.


Which explains a lot.


Which explains nothing that you appear interested in understanding.





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.


Again, the flat earth research. The majority of unbiased medical opinion
support what I believe, not what you claim. You can find a small amount of
poorly performed and extremely biased research to support anything. In the
late seventies there was a paper published purportedly proving that
mother's milk was bad for babies. It was funded - through a legitimate
University - by a corporation who manufactured infant formula and supplements.







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.


You aren't an athlete or body builder. I do not dispute that your health
might well be much better than it was, I do believe that if you were to
attempt to reach optimum health and fitness that you could not do it on Atkins.


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.


I was a part of the media. I specialised in Health, Fitness and Lifestyle.
I started out with a Science degree, then went back and studied English
Literature and Journalism. A bad accident and related medical problems took
me out of the workforce for a couple of years and now I only write part
time. I know one thing for a certainty, I would have never recovered my
health on Atkins. I needed physio for several hours a day, seven days a
week and I would not have had the energy.


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.


Folks here have been slamming Atkins since the group started. There used to
be Atkins, South Beach, whatever, debates going on non-stop. I am not new
here, I just came back with a new nick. I can recall people like Roger
Zoul, Bob in CT, Carol J etc., in constant debate over the values of Atkins
versus XXX. There has never been a consensus here.


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.


Yes, and I will continue to do so. There are very few genuine medically
recognised exceptions.


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.


All diets are designed to make the writer wealthier by providing a way to
lose weight. It isn't just Atkins.


It's the only diet I know of where it drastically curbs your
appetite from the start.


In other words you agree, the problem is willpower - you can't limit your
intake unless your appetite stops demanding it.


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?


I am not disagreeing that Atkins works, or that it offers crutches that
many other diets don't. The problem is that it works, as all calorie
restriction diets do, but the effects on general health is poor. You lose
weight, but don't gain optimum health.

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.


You don't have to hear about anything - it is entirely your choice. But a
diet that damages people who are in peak health will not be healthy for
those in poor health.

Any ideal weight loss solution will not have you spending the rest of your
life battling the temptation to eat more. Any diet - if adhered to - can
allow weight loss, but once that weight is lost you need to find a healthy
way to stay at that weight. If your initial weight loss is a result of
determination, willpower without crutches, keeping the weight off is not
too onerous a task. If you have relied on things like suppressing apetite,
you risk what happens to the majority of fad diet supporters, you put the
weight back on.

I can walk past a restaurant in the middle of the afternoon, smell some
delicious aroma wafting out and feel my tastebuds being tantalised, but
aside from feeling stimulated I am not tempted to go and eat some of
whatever it is. I know that I am not feeling hunger, I am feeling
stimulated by food. That is what many overweight people believe is hunger,
a need to indulge themselves. To find pleasure in eating, even if
accompanied by guilt. People who are greatly overweight would need to be
totally without food for a couple of days before truly beginning to
experience hunger - but they will insist that they are hungry as soon as
they become aware of a type of food that they enjoy eating.


  #9  
Old August 14th, 2011, 04:06 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
BlueBrooke[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:26:07 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

On 14/08/11 3:21 AM, BlueBrooke wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:43:41 +1000,
wrote:

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.


Didn't I just read, from you: "There are no such things as bad diets,
there are only bad dieters." ?


From the point of view of losing weight, yes. I also noted at the same
time that some diets are less healthy than others. Atkins like any diet
that cuts calories, works. From a general health and fitness point of view
it sucks.


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.


This right here shows you did *not* do Atkins as written.


Er, um - Bull****.


Your post implies that fresh foods, including high carb fruit and
vegetables, are not allowed on Atkins. This statement is untrue. So,
either you didn't bother to actually get the books, or read the
website, but instead relied on rumor and innuendo, or you never made
it past Induction and/or OWL. This is not doing Atkins "exactly as
Atkins taught."

Ongoing Weight Loss (OWL):

There are . . . two key distinctions between the first [Induction] and
second [OWL] phases of Atkins: the slightly broader array of healthful
acceptable foods in OWL and the gradual increase in overall carb
intake. These foods include nuts and seeds (which you may already be
eating if you spent more than two weeks in Induction), berries and a
few other relatively low-carb fruits, a wider array of dairy products,
a few vegetable juices and legumes such as lentils and kidney beans.
Still, despite eating more carbs and gradually introducing a greater
variety of them, it’s best to regard these two changes as baby steps.
Perhaps the biggest mistake you can make when you move from Induction
to OWL is to regard the transition as dramatic.

http://www.atkins.com/Program/Phase2...ivesofOWL.aspx

Carboyhydrate Level for Losing (CLL):

There is a tremendous range of carbohydrate tolerances. A high one
could mean a CLL of 60 to 80 grams or even more. Still others find
that they can’t move much beyond the 25 grams of Net Carbs that
initiate OWL. If you’re losing less than a pound a week on average,
you’re probably close to your CLL and should not increase your carb
intake. If your weight loss rate picks up, you may be able to raise
your carb intake slightly.

Your CLL is influenced by your age, gender, level of physical
activity, hormonal issues, medications you may be taking and other
factors such as whether you’ve repeatedly lost and regained weight.
Again, younger people and men tend to have an advantage. Increasing
your activity level or exercise program may or may not raise it. No
matter what your tolerance for carbs, however, it’s perfectly normal
to lose in fits and starts. The scale isn’t a perfect tool to measure
the positive changes you’re experiencing, which is why we recommend
weight averaging.

http://www.atkins.com/Program/Phase2...ngYourCLL.aspx

Pre-Maintenance:

In Pre-Maintenance, you’ll have the opportunity to reintroduce the
whole foods carbohydrates that have been off-limits until now. They
appear on the top three rungs of the Carb Ladder: fruit higher in
carbs, starchy vegetables and whole grains. Some people can eat all
these foods; others can eat only some, eat only in small portions or
eat them only rarely. Others find they do best when they simply stay
away from higher-carb foods that might cause weight regain or make it
difficult to stay in control. In Phase 3, you’ll learn what works—and
what doesn’t work—for you.

http://www.atkins.com/Program/Phase3...intenance.aspx


  #10  
Old August 14th, 2011, 05:27 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

Who_me? wrote:

The high
incidence of kidney problems alone among those who rigidly adhere to Atkins
should be enough to warn most people off.


I considered a larger point by point reply but the above is all that
really needs to be addressed. There are a handfull of signs that
someone is here just to troll. One is confusing the ketosis of a
successful hunter with the ketoacidosis of a diabetic. One is lying
about Dr Atkins being overweight when he slipped on the ice and broke
his skull. One is mention of kidney problems. One is competitive body
builders or marathoners complaining that a plan that is explicitly not
for them is somehow flawed because it's beneficial for the other 99%
of the population because they think what works for 1% must be good
for the other 99%.

In the 1970s when the Atkins plan well new the AMA went after him about
kidney damage. His defense was simple - Show even one single case of
new kidney damage by a person who did not have previous kidney damage
who followed the directions in his books. Three decades later Dr Atkins
slipped on the ice walking to work, at a weight that was arguably
somewhere between ideal or a bit below ideal for his height and build,
broke his skull, and died as a result of brain damage from that fall.
He died with his medical license current because the AMA never did come
up with a single case. Not one single case in three decades. Your
claim of kidney problems is nonsense.

So I call BS on you two ways. Falsehoods about kidneys. Irrelevancies
about competitive body builders.

In fact plenty of competitive body builders use a cycle process of 5-12
days of lower carb than the Atkins process would have them at and 2
days of reversed low fat low carb. The very low carb because it
reduces body fat without muscle mass loss and because it keeps water
retention low. The very low fat high carb because it promotes new
muscle mass growth at the price of water retention. Some low carb fans
use cycles because cycles work. Some low carb fans disapprove of cycles
because cycles trigger massive carb cravings for many. The intensity of
carb cravings varies widely and that explains the differing views. I
take it most competitive body builders have very weak carb cravings. My
sample space is small - The one competitive body builder who cycled like
that reported no carb cravings during his low carb weeks.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
diets sweet&soft Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 May 13th, 2008 03:26 PM
Index of Popular Diets and Niche Diets cj General Discussion 0 April 13th, 2008 04:13 AM
Very-low-fat diets are superior to low-carbohydrate diets (***sigh!***) Roger Zoul Low Carbohydrate Diets 7 March 23rd, 2006 01:00 PM
Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets John WIlliams Low Carbohydrate Diets 27 October 7th, 2004 10:19 PM
Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets John WIlliams General Discussion 24 October 7th, 2004 04:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.