depression caused by stopping the Zone?

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:29:28 -0800, tcomeau wrote:

Actually, all humans have the same metabolic system. With the exception of
those with specific metabolic disorders which accounts for less than 5% of
the population. Any weight management program that is based on real
science and the true function of human metabolism will work for the 95% or
so of metabolically normal people. If the low-carb paradigm is correct, it
will work in all of the 95% of people who have a normal metabolic system.
This jibes well with the bell curve concept to almost the third standard
deviation.

Actually, The Atkins low-carb diet is based on people NOT having a normal
metabolism... it is geared towards people with hyper-insulinism (coined
and explained by Atkins... I'll let you look it up.)

--
i.m.
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.

On 30 Mar 2004 06:56:39 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Dave Hannes" wrote in message news:cBY9c.34229

snip


The problem may be in the diet you were on before you went on the zone
diet. By that I mean a diet high in refined carbs.

The human body needs b vitamins and folate to metabolize sugars and
carbs in general. Foods that contain sugars and carbs usually come
with these vitamins. Refined carbs don't. When you metabolize these
carbs, the body has to get these vitamins from the existing vitamin
stores in your body. Eventually you will become depleted of these
vitamins.

What does this have to do with depression?

Tryptophan and niacin are serotonin precursors. They get converted
into serotonin in the body. But in the absense of the b vitamins and
folate, the body is unable to convert them to serotonin. Thus you
become depleted of serotonin.

It has been shown that carbs gives you a short burst of serotonin,
which may explain the addictions people feel towards refined carbs. It
may also explain how the depression is more pronounced when you
restrict carbs.

Bottom line.... take a good b vitamin complex stress formula. Over a
couple of weeks you should feel the difference. Stay on the zone too
if you are so inclined. And most importantly, cut out refined carbs.
TC

Nice info...but a horrible conclusion...if the Zone diet is low in
carbohyrdates, she should not stay on it...yes, cut out refined carbs but,
no, do not have a diet low in all carbs...as you indicated, this will only
make her more depressed.

D

No one has ever suggested a diet low in all carbs. No one. Not even
the infamous Atkins induction phase.

Nonsense. Atkins advoctaed NO carbs unless you could stay in ketosis.
You have claimed that carbs are the root of all evil, despite calorie
considerations.

You are making some strange and erroneous assumptions about The Zone
and low-carb diets in general. You may want to actually read one of
the low-carb books.

Forty percent carb calories is hardly low carb!

The basic foundation of a low carb diet is to cut *refined* and
high-GI-load carbs.

Garbage. Low carb means low carb. You are describing a low GI diet. No
wonder no-one understands your wild assertions.

People on low-carb diets usually end up eating
more of the unrefined carbs because when you cut the refined and
high-GI-load carbs, it leaves you with plenty of unrefined carbs to
eat.

Huh? How does it leave this?
No-one has ever advocated eating refined foods.
Just the opposite, in fact.

I've yet to see a low-carb advocate even suggest that you cut good
wholefood unrefined carbs.

They all do. Get a grip. Many type 2 diabetics (diet and exercise) are
trying to reduce their carbs to near zero.

Except for cutting out a few high starch
tubers and high-GI fruits.

And any other carbs that they haven't got the insulin capacity to deal
with. Low GI fruits are still high carb (fructose).

And that still leaves a huge selection of
healthy, unrefined, wholefood carbs.

Which up till now you have blamed for all our troubles.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:31:50 GMT, "Dave Hannes"
posted:

I think you are saying that she should stick with starches vs. sugars for
her carb fix, which I agree with it.

Most starch is higher GI than refined white sugar.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:56:16 -0600, "Ivan Marsh"
posted:

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:19:53 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote:

Then again, I've seen people fail to lose on Atkins but the only ones I've
ever heard of who had anything negative happen were folks who failed to
follow the directions. Following the directions for months without losing
is frustrating but not harmfull and it's the worst that happens to folks
who do follow the directions.

True... most folks seem to think "Just don't eat carbs" is the whole thing.

Isn't that what the advertised promise is? It certainly was 30 years
ago. I suspect it changes as folks realise the dangers of restricting
carbs until you go ketotic.

On 1 Apr 2004 12:29:28 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Ivan Marsh" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:19:53 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote:

Then again, I've seen people fail to lose on Atkins but the only ones I've
ever heard of who had anything negative happen were folks who failed to
follow the directions. Following the directions for months without losing
is frustrating but not harmfull and it's the worst that happens to folks
who do follow the directions.

True... most folks seem to think "Just don't eat carbs" is the whole thing.

Actually, all humans have the same metabolic system. With the
exception of those with specific metabolic disorders which accounts
for less than 5% of the population. Any weight management program that
is based on real science and the true function of human metabolism
will work for the 95% or so of metabolically normal people. If the
low-carb paradigm is correct, it will work in all of the 95% of people
who have a normal metabolic system. This jibes well with the bell
curve concept to almost the third standard deviation.

If the "just don't eat any refined and high-GI carbs" folks are, in
fact, correct, then it will apply to the 95% plus.

TC, is that you???

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:17:58 -0600, "Ivan Marsh"
posted:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:29:28 -0800, tcomeau wrote:

Actually, all humans have the same metabolic system. With the exception of
those with specific metabolic disorders which accounts for less than 5% of
the population. Any weight management program that is based on real
science and the true function of human metabolism will work for the 95% or
so of metabolically normal people. If the low-carb paradigm is correct, it
will work in all of the 95% of people who have a normal metabolic system.
This jibes well with the bell curve concept to almost the third standard
deviation.

Actually, The Atkins low-carb diet is based on people NOT having a normal
metabolism... it is geared towards people with hyper-insulinism (coined
and explained by Atkins... I'll let you look it up.)

That makes sense, thanks, Ivan.

Moosh wrote:

Isn't that what the advertised promise is? It certainly was 30 years
ago.

No. I don't think it was so even 30 years ago... but low-carb goes back
further than that... first published reports were by Banting.

I suspect it changes as folks realise the dangers of restricting
carbs until you go ketotic.

I don't think anyone has identified any dangers of ketosis yet - I
haven't seen any yet anyways.

I do think the low-carb diets have been refined tremendously via
empirical evidence. Specifically, on this newsgroup (asdlc) - a huge
colleciton of low-carb info has been collected. I have not always been
an active poster, but have been around a lot of years here and learned a
lot of practical stuff... plus a lot of references to research I
wouldn't have run across myself; e.g. the recent info on celiac disease,
the info on leptin in the past, etc.

There is Atkins, there is Protein Power, there is Bernstein, there is
Sugar Busters, Carbohydrate Addicts Diet, South Beach, the whole
Somersizing thing, the Zone. Every one is refined based on previous
work and current research. Lots of "plans" come-and-go, some stick -
that seems to be mroe dependent on "popularity" than science though.

But there is also a huge body of information that has been collected
here over the years. I personally re-read the Eades and Bernstein when
I started back up as I consider the Eades an excellent reference to an
low-carb diet in general, and Bernstein excellent on diabetes
specifically, but I frankly re-read the FAQ here first.

Moosh wrote:
Ivan Marsh" posted:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Then again, I've seen people fail to lose on Atkins but the only ones I've
ever heard of who had anything negative happen were folks who failed to
follow the directions. Following the directions for months without losing
is frustrating but not harmfull and it's the worst that happens to folks
who do follow the directions.

True... most folks seem to think "Just don't eat carbs" is the whole thing.

Isn't that what the advertised promise is?

No way, no how.

It certainly was 30 years ago.

Read the book. No need to go off half cocked dreaming up what you
imagine is in the book. The 1972 edition of Doctor Atkins Diet
Revolution is in nearly every library in the US. Read it and then
you will know what you're talking about.

I suspect it changes as folks realise the dangers of restricting
carbs until you go ketotic.

And those dangers are what? If you follow the actual instructions,
not just randomly "just don't eat carbs" without a clue to guide
you.

You are dealing with our biggest troll here.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
om...
Moosh wrote:
Ivan Marsh" posted:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Then again, I've seen people fail to lose on Atkins but the only ones
I've
ever heard of who had anything negative happen were folks who failed
to
follow the directions. Following the directions for months without
losing
is frustrating but not harmfull and it's the worst that happens to
folks
who do follow the directions.

True... most folks seem to think "Just don't eat carbs" is the whole
thing.

Isn't that what the advertised promise is?

No way, no how.

It certainly was 30 years ago.

Read the book. No need to go off half cocked dreaming up what you
imagine is in the book. The 1972 edition of Doctor Atkins Diet
Revolution is in nearly every library in the US. Read it and then
you will know what you're talking about.

I suspect it changes as folks realise the dangers of restricting
carbs until you go ketotic.

And those dangers are what? If you follow the actual instructions,
not just randomly "just don't eat carbs" without a clue to guide
you.

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On 1 Apr 2004 12:29:28 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Ivan Marsh" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:19:53 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote:

Then again, I've seen people fail to lose on Atkins but the only ones I've
ever heard of who had anything negative happen were folks who failed to
follow the directions. Following the directions for months without losing
is frustrating but not harmfull and it's the worst that happens to folks
who do follow the directions.

True... most folks seem to think "Just don't eat carbs" is the whole thing.

Actually, all humans have the same metabolic system. With the
exception of those with specific metabolic disorders which accounts
for less than 5% of the population. Any weight management program that
is based on real science and the true function of human metabolism
will work for the 95% or so of metabolically normal people. If the
low-carb paradigm is correct, it will work in all of the 95% of people
who have a normal metabolic system. This jibes well with the bell
curve concept to almost the third standard deviation.

If the "just don't eat any refined and high-GI carbs" folks are, in
fact, correct, then it will apply to the 95% plus.

TC, is that you???

Yes it is me. According to all the bio-chemistry texts that I've read
we all have the same metabolism, with few exceptions. Any good healthy
diet should be applicable for most people.

TC