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
  #41  
Old August 19th, 2011, 03:17 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

Dogman wrote:

It does ZERO damage to an athlete, but competitive athletes will
usually want to keep their carb counts a bit higher than a non-athlete
might, especially when training. Depending on how their body
responds.


I remember one dieter who gradually ramped up her exercise program as
her weight dropped and once she hit her ideal weight just kept upping
her exercise until she became a competive body builder in her state.
Following the directions she just kept upping her carb grams to match
her activity. Before she hit the state level she was about 150 carb
grams per day because that's what the directions said to do. Clearly
the OP has no idea what the directions say to do. To prepare for the
state tourniment she switched to the cycle process that was standard
among body builds about 2000 and thus was no longer on Atkins. Note
that anyone who sees the number 150 and thinks that isn't Atkins has no
clue what the directions actually say to do.

The Paleo, Primal, Caveman, etc. diets are essentially the Atkins
diet, and are the new "fad."


Some folks like to claim that Atkins is just a rehash of Banting. In
one perspective it is. Before his plan becamse famous Dr Atkins used
other low carb plans as the starting point for his own plan. What he
did is make low carbing well known, and he did that from 1970 until he
died.

Some folks like to claim that other low carb plans aren't the children
of the Atkins plan. Nearly all of them are most certainly the result of
the fame of the Atkins plan. Dr A put low carb on the map. All the
other well known plans at least started with the knowledge that low
carbing was an option.

Calling them "essentially the Atkins diet" isn't as extreme as calling
Atkins a rehash of Banting. Calling them "inspired by Atkins" is not.
Any authors who claim they were not inspired by Atkins are making a
laughable claim. Atkins made low carbing famous. He made low carbing a
household word. No author of a low carb plan since 1973 could have
failed to know of Atkins. How about we say that the various low carb
plans have been efforts to improve the low carbing state of the art?

Hell, Dukan's probably pretty good, too.


Of course. Most low carb plans work well. I suggest that all of them
published since 1973 have improved the low carbing state of the art in
one way or another. Even from the brief summary posted by trader4 it's
clear that the Dukan plan does exactly that.
  #42  
Old August 21st, 2011, 10:56 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Aug 21, 1:54*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:31:00 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

[...]

Hey - a name I recognise from the last time I was here.


You finally woke up after Doug has already engaged
you starting several days ago. Real sharp, ehh?




Wrong about not
knowing Atkins though - I know it very well. It is effective for weight
loss, it sucks for long term athletic endeavor. You simply aren't competitive.


Athletes don't normally need to lose weight. Some athletes may wish to
increase carb levels during intensive training.

The Paleo, Primal, Caveman, etc. diets are essentially the Atkins
diet, and are the new "fad."


What planet are you on? "NEW"?


Earth. And they're newer than Atkins, which was the point.

Some folks like to claim that Atkins is just a rehash of Banting. *In
one perspective it is. *Before his plan becamse famous Dr Atkins used
other low carb plans as the starting point for his own plan. *What he
did is make low carbing well known, and he did that from 1970 until he
died.


Low carb has been around since the early eighteen hundreds - it was not
widely known outside France.


Low-carb has probably been around as long as Man as been around
("Look, I can see my abs again, Grok, since I've stopped eating so
many carrots and began eating more buffalo!"). And Banting's book (a
pamphlet, actually) was first published in 1863, so the French likely
got it from Banting. But who knows? More importantly, who cares?

Some folks like to claim that other low carb plans aren't the children
of the Atkins plan. *Nearly all of them are most certainly the result of
the fame of the Atkins plan.


Not so. Atkins was so constantly attacked by the medical and health
professions that most would want to distance themselves from him - not copy
him. More modern diets have the advantage of access to real research - a
lot of which was intended to disparage Atkins. That is about his only
contribution.


Please. Without Atkins, few people would have ever heard of the
low-carb way of eating.

Most of the time, getting attacked by the medical and health
professions is a "good thing," considering how often they are/were
wrong.

Just this morning, I heard a doctor on TV say that eating too much
meat causes diabetes. Really? Eating too many *carbs* causes diabetes.
Eating less carbs and more meat can actually cure diabetes.

So much for the "medical and health profession." Ugh.


Exactly. Atkins was attacked so much because his diet
was popular and his books were best sellers. The so
called health experts were not going to be attacking someone
who's diet people never heard of nor were using.

And on what basis did they attack it? For one, they said LC would
make your kidneys fail. Sound familiar? It's exactly what
troll claims. Yet, he brings up the Dukan diet as one that
is good. Dukan starts people off at 0 carbs, almost pure
protein, no vegetables for 10 days. What's up with that?
The very same "experts" have attacked Dukan too.

Those "experts" also attacked Atkins because it was
high fat. So is Dukan. We're all still waiting to hear
from troll the key difference that makes Dukan a good
and safe diet, while Atkins in dangerous and unhealthy.
So far, the only key difference that I see is Dukan
is French. Either he got into this without understanding
what Atkins and Dukan really are and now he just
continues to make an ass of himself, or else he's
a troll. I vote for troll.





Dr A put low carb on the map.


I won't disagree with that. The controversy he created made it well known.

  #43  
Old August 21st, 2011, 11:32 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:56:37 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 21, 1:54*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:31:00 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

[...]

They work exceptionally well if you use them as a diet and not a crutch to
whack a normal healthy appetite over the head.


I don't understand what that means. If the diet that someone is on is
making them fat, how is that healthy?

--
Dogman


We covered what that means a while back. It means
that you and I know that a key component of LC
is that when you drastically cut carbs your hunger
and cravings disappear.


Okay. But how does *having* cravings and constant hunger = "normal
healthy diet"?

You, Doug and I and I think
everyone else in this thread and probably Dukan too
would agree that is a key benefit of LC.


You bet! And I'm generally a BIG eater. One
full-pound-of-spaghetti-in-a-sitting kind of eater.

Now, not so much.

It makes
the diet workable for most people so that they can
stay on it and succeed. Troll believes
that people who feel hungry or perhaps don't have
metabolisms like his are just personally weak.
He made some lame ass comment about if
that benefit of LC is true, why not just cut off
people's taste buds.


Frankly, I don't understand what either of these guys is trying to get
at. They don't make a lot of sense, if you know what I mean.

--
Dogman
  #44  
Old August 22nd, 2011, 06:48 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 22/08/11 7:56 AM, wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:54 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:31:00 +1000,
wrote:

[...]

Hey - a name I recognise from the last time I was here.


You finally woke up after Doug has already engaged
you starting several days ago. Real sharp, ehh?


Yep - I just remembered the name. If that gives you some sort of thrill,
then enjoy. Glad to have been of service.


Exactly. Atkins was attacked so much because his diet
was popular and his books were best sellers. The so
called health experts were not going to be attacking someone
who's diet people never heard of nor were using.

And on what basis did they attack it? For one, they said LC would
make your kidneys fail. Sound familiar? It's exactly what
troll claims. Yet, he brings up the Dukan diet as one that
is good. Dukan starts people off at 0 carbs, almost pure
protein, no vegetables for 10 days. What's up with that?
The very same "experts" have attacked Dukan too.


When are you going to actually read Dukan's book? Every time you say "ten
days" it is clear indicator that you have not yet read the book. Most who I
know who have adopted the diet do as he recommends and stick to two to four
days, the majority (who are not hugely fat) only two days - as Dukan
recommends.

Until you actually read the book and stop parroting misinformed comments
about it there is little point in re-covering old ground.

Also, I DO NOT recommend Dukan - I simply compared a part of his diet with
my normal diet. If someone asks me for diet advice - someone who I would be
prepared to help - I would recommend a completely different regimen.



  #45  
Old August 22nd, 2011, 12:20 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Aug 22, 1:48*am, Who_me? wrote:

When are you going to actually read Dukan's book? Every time you say "ten
days" it is clear indicator that you have not yet read the book. Most who I
know who have adopted the diet do as he recommends and stick to two to four
days, the majority (who are not hugely fat) only two days - as Dukan
recommends.


Once again, let's go right to the source.

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

Unless that's an imposter in the video, right there we have
Dukan stating that the attack phase lasts from 2 to 7 days
depending on how much you have to lose. And during
that period you are limited to 67 high protein, low fat
food, eg meat, fish, poultry, fat free dairy. So, let's
use Dukan's 7 days. Does that materially change anything?

Now explain to us exactly how the Dukan diet is
safe and sound
while Atkins is dangerous and will damage your
kidneys. Atkins Induction lasts 14 days and allows
20g of carbs per day. It also allows LC vegetables
that fit within that carb budget, while Dukan does not.
It also allows more fat, while Dukan does not, but
apparently from what you've posted so far, fat isn't
what concerns you. Both diets will put
you in ketosis. So, exactly what is it that
makes Atkins so unsafe, while Dukan is OK?

As for reading Dukan's book, maybe you should
read it again. You have had a hard time even
keeping the terms correct:

"What I said - if you care to actually read - is that his diet,
in the maintenance phase is pretty close to the my diet."

For the record, "maintenance phase" is the term
Atkins used. Dukan uses "cruise phase".




Until you actually read the book and stop parroting misinformed comments
about it there is little point in re-covering old ground.


In other words, you have no answer to the key issue.
My "misinformation"
consisted of saying that Dukan's attack phase lasted 10
days. In fact, it lasts 2 to 7 days. I corrected it and am
still waiting for an explanation of how 7 days of Dukan
is cool, but 14 days of Atkins is dangerous and damaging
to the kidneys.

Let's compare that to some of your misinformation:

No overweight person has normal kidney function.

Atkins Nutritional is out of business and their products
no longer exist.

Atkins was obese before he slipped and died 2
weeks later.

The Atkins Diet, according to the Atkins group itself, died several
years ago when they had to file for chapter eleven protection -

There is no genetic link to obesity.



Also, I DO NOT recommend Dukan - I simply compared a part of his diet with
my normal diet. If someone asks me for diet advice - someone who I would be
prepared to help - I would recommend a completely different regimen.


You've sure gone out of your way here defending Dukan
at every step, while also selectively slamming Atkins at
every step. And that includes dirty tactics like claiming
health experts say Atkins is unsafe, while ignoring that
the very same thing is said about Dukan and for the
very same alleged reasons. And of course the
same allegations are made,
because the diets are remarkably similar, right down
to having 4 phases. One big difference is that Atkins
published his first book, Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution,
a best seller, before Dukan even started developing
his diet with patients. Dukan's book came out nearly
3 decades later.
  #46  
Old August 22nd, 2011, 12:46 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

In article ,
Dogman wrote:


Low-carb has probably been around as long as Man as been around
("Look, I can see my abs again, Grok, since I've stopped eating so
many carrots and began eating more buffalo!"). And Banting's book (a
pamphlet, actually) was first published in 1863, so the French likely
got it from Banting. But who knows? More importantly, who cares?


Grok ate anything that wouldn't kill him quickly. But, you know, most
certainly, he preferred meat and especially fat when he could get it.
Even in vegetarian India, butter and ghee (clarified butter) are or at
least traditionally *very* highly regarded. The money lender would
provide a loan for a cow and take the butterfat along with the interest,
and there are all sorts of stories of Lord Krishna as a small child as a
charming little butter thief.

Nowadays, the Indian vegetarians are going for seed oils and high carbs.

--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
  #47  
Old August 22nd, 2011, 02:52 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 22/08/11 9:20 PM, wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:48 am, wrote:

When are you going to actually read Dukan's book? Every time you say "ten
days" it is clear indicator that you have not yet read the book. Most who I
know who have adopted the diet do as he recommends and stick to two to four
days, the majority (who are not hugely fat) only two days - as Dukan
recommends.


Once again, let's go right to the source.

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

Unless that's an imposter in the video, right there we have
Dukan stating that the attack phase lasts from 2 to 7 days
depending on how much you have to lose.


Two to seven. Yet you have consistently claimed ten.


And during
that period you are limited to 67 high protein, low fat
food, eg meat, fish, poultry, fat free dairy. So, let's
use Dukan's 7 days. Does that materially change anything?

Now explain to us exactly how the Dukan diet is
safe and sound
while Atkins is dangerous and will damage your
kidneys.


Maybe you should read the thread again. You are now putting words in my
mouth, and the only thing that I like in my mouth other than food and
drink, has boobs. Very nice boobs in fact.


  #48  
Old August 22nd, 2011, 03:57 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

We covered what that means a while back. It means
that you and I know that a key component of LC
is that when you drastically cut carbs your hunger
and cravings disappear.


Okay. But how does *having* cravings and constant hunger = "normal
healthy diet"?


I wonder if people who dismiss the lack of cravings are the ones who
don't get them themselves and they believe no one else does either.
And/or some people never wake up in the middle of the night hour after
hour from hunger while they are on some plan that triggers cravings in
others. The advice from naturally thin people tends to be repetitive
and so obviously wrong it's pitiful.
  #49  
Old August 22nd, 2011, 05:58 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:48:42 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

[...]
Also, I DO NOT recommend Dukan - I simply compared a part of his diet with
my normal diet. If someone asks me for diet advice - someone who I would be
prepared to help - I would recommend a completely different regimen.


Fortunately, no one in his or her right mind would ever ask you, of
all people, for diet advice.

And until you can figure out why 1863 was in the 1800s, not the 1900s,
you probably shouldn't be giving anyone advice on anything.

--
Dogman
  #50  
Old August 22nd, 2011, 07:29 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

In article ,
Dogman wrote:

PS: Have you ever thanked the Anglos who saved your French asses from
the Germans? You'd be preaching the merits of the German language
today, not French, were it not for all those A-N-G-L-O-S.


Visiting Arromanches-les-Bains, I was having a beer at a bar, when I saw
a beer glass I didn't recognize. I asked the bar tender how much it
would cost to buy a pair of them, and he said,"Vous etes d'ou?" I said,
"D'Amerique". He shoved a pair of glasses at me. No charge.

You really ought to grow up.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it's not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don't get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis
 




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 10:10 AM.


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