another atkins question

Right now I weight about 184 and would like to get down to 165.

Should I just stay in this induction phase until I get to 165.. ? Why
would you move out of this before getting to the goal weight ... what
is the reason people go onto the next phase ... is there something
that is not good about the induction phase... so far I have no
problems with it, and feel I can stay on it for a long time ...

Thanks.

John wrote:

Right now I weight about 184 and would like to get down to 165.

So you currently have 19 pounds to lose, and that assumes
that you used an accurate method to chose your goal weight
like body fat percentages or looking yourself up in a life
insurance chart and add 10 pounds.

Should I just stay in this induction phase until I get to 165.. ?

Well let's see. The directions say to move on the phase
three PreMaintenance when you have 10-20 to lose and you
are asking if you should stay at phase one. No. Following
the directions works better than wishful thinking and refusing
to believe that the process works.

Why would you move out of this before getting to the goal weight

In addition to the T3 issue mentioned by Susan, because it
works better to follow the entire process than to do the obvious
that treats Atkins like a fad diet. I'll mention fad diet farther
down.

... what is the reason people go onto the next phase

I can't tell if you're a troll or if you're ignoring posts. Following
a porcess that took several decades to tune works better than
some fad diet someone can dream up over night.

... is there something that is not good about the induction
phase...

Yes.

so far I have no problems with it,

Yes you do have problems with it - You are trying to cling
to it. That's a problem.

and feel I can stay on it for a long time ...

Folks who stay on Induction have a higher drop out rate. So
what if you feel now like you can stay on it longer. Lots of
folks who dropped out stated that before dropping out.

Fad diet -

I worry if I go off Atkins or don't stick with it

Induction is not Atkins. It is part of Atkins. Since the
direction say you should now be moving to PreMaintenance
you are definitely not sticking to it right now.

and go back to carbs

Reality check. Have you read the carb ladder that tells
what carbs to try when? Then explain to me why adding
more cauliflower equals "go back to carbs". You're not
making sense here because you aren't depicting what
Atkins actually is in the book. A hint - The first week of
OWL has a carb quota of 25 net and you get there with
extra servings of low carb veggies not a large spoon of
chocolate cake.

I will be even more susceptible to them putting the weight on.

Treating Atkins like a fad diet does put you into a pattern
of crash and burn, lament, regain, waiting too long to return,
coming back, insisting on over doing it, crashing and buring
again. Start today to not be in that cycle. Set you carb
quota to 25 like it says in the book and follow the process
as it is written.

"John" wrote in message
...
Right now I weight about 184 and would like to get down to 165.

Should I just stay in this induction phase until I get to 165.. ? Why
would you move out of this before getting to the goal weight ... what
is the reason people go onto the next phase ... is there something
that is not good about the induction phase... so far I have no
problems with it, and feel I can stay on it for a long time ...

Thanks.



I stuck with perpetual induction-like carb numbers. It worked fine for me.
I suspect even Atkins was afraid to recommend lifelong ketosis. He was,
after all, a Medical Doctor. He caught a lot of flak for the diet even as
it is.

On Apr 12, 8:50 pm, "Cubit" wrote:

I stuck with perpetual induction-like carb numbers. It worked fine for me.
I suspect even Atkins was afraid to recommend lifelong ketosis. He was,
after all, a Medical Doctor. He caught a lot of flak for the diet even as
it is.

Here is an article which seems to say that there is no ill effects
from staying on very low carbs.

BEGIN:

Why didn't Eskimos get scurvy before citrus was introduced to their
diet? They have a traditional diet of almost entirely meat and fish.
Where did they get their vitamin C? --Kevin Carson, via the Internet

Dear Kevin:

This calls to mind a question I've dealt with befo Why do the
Eskimos (or Inuit, as those in Canada and Greenland generally prefer
to be called) stay there? It turns out that the people of the north
have a highly evolved physiology that makes them well suited to life
in the arctic: a compact build that conserves warmth, a faster
metabolism, optimally distributed body fat, and special modifications
to the circulatory system. One marvels at the adaptability of the
human organism, of course, but still one has to ask: Wouldn't it have
been easier just to move to San Diego?

Much of what we know about the Eskimo diet comes from the legendary
arctic anthropologist and adventurer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who made
several daredevil journeys through the region in the early 20th
century. Stefansson noticed the same thing you did, that the
traditional Eskimo diet consisted largely of meat and fish, with
fruits, vegetables, and other carbohydrates--the usual source of
vitamin C--accounting for as little as 2 percent of total calorie
intake. Yet they didn't get scurvy.

Stefansson argued that the native peoples of the arctic got their
vitamin C from meat that was raw or minimally cooked--cooking, it
seems, destroys the vitamin. (In fact, for a long time "Eskimo" was
thought to be a derisive Native American term meaning "eater of raw
flesh," although this is now discounted.) Stefansson claimed the high
incidence of scurvy among European explorers could be explained by
their refusal to eat like the natives. He proved this to his own
satisfaction by subsisting in good health for lengthy periods--one
memorable odyssey lasted for five years--strictly on whatever meat and
fish he and his companions could catch.

A few holdouts didn't buy it. To settle the matter once and for all,
Stefansson and a colleague lived on a meat-only diet for one year
under medical supervision at New York's Bellevue Hospital, starting in
February 1928. The two ate between 100 and 140 grams of protein a day,
the balance of their calories coming from fat, yet they remained
scurvy free. Later in life Stefansson became a strong advocate of a
high-meat diet even if you didn't live in the arctic; he professed to
enjoy improved health, reduced weight, etc, from meals consisting of
coffee, the occasional grapefruit, and a nice steak, presumably rare.
Doesn't sound half bad, and one might note that until recently the
Inuit rarely suffered from atherosclerosis and other Western ailments.

Vitamin C can be found in a variety of traditional Eskimo/Inuit
staples, including the skin of beluga whales (known as muktuk), which
is said to contain as much vitamin C as oranges. Other reported
sources include the organ meats of sea mammals as well as the stomach
contents of caribou. You're thinking: It'll be a mighty cold day in
the arctic before they catch me eating the stomach contents of
caribou. Indeed, you have to wonder whether the Inuit really ate such
stuff either, since Stefansson describes it being fed to dogs.

Other aspects of the arctic diet also remain controversial. For
example, some say the Eskimos could get vitamin C from blueberries
during the summer months, while others say you'd be lucky to find
enough berries to cover a bowl of Rice Chex. I say let's not sweat the
details of the menu, which varied from region to region anyway. We
know Eskimos got enough vitamin C in their traditional diet to survive
because obviously they did. Now it's academic--most arctic natives
live in villages and get their vitamin C from OJ and Juicy Juice, just
like you and I.

Oh, and for all you vegetarians who've seen the error of your ways and
were thinking of adopting the Inuit diet--think twice about the raw
meat thing. Vitamin C might not a problem, but E. coli might.

On Apr 12, 5:37 pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
John wrote:

Well let's see. The directions say to move on the phase
three PreMaintenance when you have 10-20 to lose and you
are asking if you should stay at phase one. No. Following
the directions works better than wishful thinking and refusing
to believe that the process works.


I totally believe that the process works, I just want to lose the
weight quickly first and then I can move into the other stages.
The summer is coming really soon and I want to look good on
the beach so I prefer to get the weight off fast but will for sure
stay on Atkins later stages once reaching the goal weight.



I can't tell if you're a troll or if you're ignoring posts. Following
a porcess that took several decades to tune works better than
some fad diet someone can dream up over night.


Not a troll, just curious. I have seen first hand so far the diet
working so I'm not against it. I am just trying to figure it all
out etc.

"john" wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 8:50 pm, "Cubit" wrote:

I stuck with perpetual induction-like carb numbers. It worked fine for
me.
I suspect even Atkins was afraid to recommend lifelong ketosis. He was,
after all, a Medical Doctor. He caught a lot of flak for the diet even
as
it is.

Here is an article which seems to say that there is no ill effects
from staying on very low carbs.

BEGIN:

Why didn't Eskimos get scurvy before citrus was introduced to their
diet? They have a traditional diet of almost entirely meat and fish.
Where did they get their vitamin C? --Kevin Carson, via the Internet

Dear Kevin:

This calls to mind a question I've dealt with befo Why do the
Eskimos (or Inuit, as those in Canada and Greenland generally prefer
to be called) stay there? It turns out that the people of the north
have a highly evolved physiology that makes them well suited to life
in the arctic: a compact build that conserves warmth, a faster
metabolism, optimally distributed body fat, and special modifications
to the circulatory system. One marvels at the adaptability of the
human organism, of course, but still one has to ask: Wouldn't it have
been easier just to move to San Diego?

Much of what we know about the Eskimo diet comes from the legendary
arctic anthropologist and adventurer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who made
several daredevil journeys through the region in the early 20th
century. Stefansson noticed the same thing you did, that the
traditional Eskimo diet consisted largely of meat and fish, with
fruits, vegetables, and other carbohydrates--the usual source of
vitamin C--accounting for as little as 2 percent of total calorie
intake. Yet they didn't get scurvy.

Stefansson argued that the native peoples of the arctic got their
vitamin C from meat that was raw or minimally cooked--cooking, it
seems, destroys the vitamin. (In fact, for a long time "Eskimo" was
thought to be a derisive Native American term meaning "eater of raw
flesh," although this is now discounted.) Stefansson claimed the high
incidence of scurvy among European explorers could be explained by
their refusal to eat like the natives. He proved this to his own
satisfaction by subsisting in good health for lengthy periods--one
memorable odyssey lasted for five years--strictly on whatever meat and
fish he and his companions could catch.

A few holdouts didn't buy it. To settle the matter once and for all,
Stefansson and a colleague lived on a meat-only diet for one year
under medical supervision at New York's Bellevue Hospital, starting in
February 1928. The two ate between 100 and 140 grams of protein a day,
the balance of their calories coming from fat, yet they remained
scurvy free. Later in life Stefansson became a strong advocate of a
high-meat diet even if you didn't live in the arctic; he professed to
enjoy improved health, reduced weight, etc, from meals consisting of
coffee, the occasional grapefruit, and a nice steak, presumably rare.
Doesn't sound half bad, and one might note that until recently the
Inuit rarely suffered from atherosclerosis and other Western ailments.

Vitamin C can be found in a variety of traditional Eskimo/Inuit
staples, including the skin of beluga whales (known as muktuk), which
is said to contain as much vitamin C as oranges. Other reported
sources include the organ meats of sea mammals as well as the stomach
contents of caribou. You're thinking: It'll be a mighty cold day in
the arctic before they catch me eating the stomach contents of
caribou. Indeed, you have to wonder whether the Inuit really ate such
stuff either, since Stefansson describes it being fed to dogs.

Other aspects of the arctic diet also remain controversial. For
example, some say the Eskimos could get vitamin C from blueberries
during the summer months, while others say you'd be lucky to find
enough berries to cover a bowl of Rice Chex. I say let's not sweat the
details of the menu, which varied from region to region anyway. We
know Eskimos got enough vitamin C in their traditional diet to survive
because obviously they did. Now it's academic--most arctic natives
live in villages and get their vitamin C from OJ and Juicy Juice, just
like you and I.

Oh, and for all you vegetarians who've seen the error of your ways and
were thinking of adopting the Inuit diet--think twice about the raw
meat thing. Vitamin C might not a problem, but E. coli might.

In Taubes' book there is a hypothesis that the refined carbohydrates act as
an anti-nutrient, thus, increasing the need for vitamin C. The British
sailors apparently had a lot of sugar sweetened foods back when scurvy
became recognized.

john wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

The directions say to move on the phase
three PreMaintenance when you have 10-20 to lose and you
are asking if you should stay at phase one. *No.

I totally believe that the process works, I just want to lose the
weight quickly first and then I can move into the other stages.

Why do you believe the false assumption that increasing
your carb quota will result in slower loss? Cite the studies
Susan mentioned about decreasing T3 and the stalls that
will cause and any data anyone has on the topic. Explain
why phase two has the name Ongoing Weight Loss.

Seriously, Dr A spent decades tuning the process in
non-obvious ways to produce results better than the obvious.

john wrote:
"Cubit" wrote:

Here is an article which seems to say that there is no ill effects
from staying on very low carbs.

BEGIN:
Why didn't Eskimos get scurvy before citrus was introduced to their
diet? They have a traditional diet of almost entirely meat and fish.
Where did they get their vitamin C? --Kevin Carson, via the Internet

Have you seen what Inuits eat to stay healthy on nearly all
meat diets? You want fresh seal eyeballs and fermented
flesh with fresh maggots, go for it dude.

Dear Kevin:

It turns out that the people of the north
have a highly evolved physiology that makes them well suited to life
in the arctic: a compact build that conserves warmth, a faster
metabolism, optimally distributed body fat, and special modifications
to the circulatory system. One marvels at the adaptability of the
human organism, of course, but still one has to ask: Wouldn't it have
been easier just to move to San Diego?

While this has truthful parts the fact remains that random
people who switch the the fresh seal eyeball and fermented
flesh with fresh maggot diet have very good health. Inuits
do not thrive because of their genetics. They thrive because
they share our genetics.

Much of what we know about the Eskimo diet comes from the legendary
arctic anthropologist and adventurer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who made
several daredevil journeys through the region in the early 20th
century. Stefansson noticed the same thing you did, that the
traditional Eskimo diet consisted largely of meat and fish, with
fruits, vegetables, and other carbohydrates--the usual source of
vitamin C--accounting for as little as 2 percent of total calorie
intake. Yet they didn't get scurvy.

And he ate food most of us won't.

Stefansson argued that the native peoples of the arctic got their
vitamin C from meat that was raw or minimally cooked--cooking, it
seems, destroys the vitamin. (In fact, for a long time "Eskimo" was
thought to be a derisive Native American term meaning "eater of raw
flesh," although this is now discounted.) Stefansson claimed the high
incidence of scurvy among European explorers could be explained by
their refusal to eat like the natives. He proved this to his own
satisfaction by subsisting in good health for lengthy periods--one
memorable odyssey lasted for five years--strictly on whatever meat and
fish he and his companions could catch.

And they prepred that catch Inuit syle. I'll pass and eat
some brocolli thanks.

Vitamin C can be found in a variety of traditional Eskimo/Inuit
staples, including the skin of beluga whales (known as muktuk), which
is said to contain as much vitamin C as oranges.

Interesting point - Most mammals synthesize their own.

Other reported
sources include the organ meats of sea mammals as well as the stomach
contents of caribou. You're thinking: It'll be a mighty cold day in
the arctic before they catch me eating the stomach contents of
caribou. Indeed, you have to wonder whether the Inuit really ate such
stuff either, since Stefansson describes it being fed to dogs.

But I've seen fresh seal eyeballs being eaten by Anthony
Bourdain on FoodTV.



If you're on Induction why are you discussing the Inuit fresh
seal eyeball diet? Very little similarity. You understand it
does not apply at all to your situation, right?

On Apr 13, 6:32 pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
john wrote:

If you're on Induction why are you discussing the Inuit fresh
seal eyeball diet? Very little similarity. You understand it
does not apply at all to your situation, right?

All I'm pointing out here is that we simply don't need carbs,
or need extremely little carbs and can still keep living. Carbs
don't seem to be a necessity. In theory one could simply
eat meat every day and pop a vitamin pill every day and could
do that for like a year no problem.

On Apr 12, 5:37*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
John wrote:

Right now I weight about 184 and would like to get down to 165.

So you currently have 19 pounds to lose, and that assumes
that you used an accurate method to chose your goal weight
like body fat percentages or looking yourself up in a life
insurance chart and add 10 pounds.

Should I just stay in this induction phase until I get to 165.. ?

Well let's see. *The directions say to move on the phase
three PreMaintenance when you have 10-20 to lose and you
are asking if you should stay at phase one. *No. *Following
the directions works better than wishful thinking and refusing
to believe that the process works.

Why would you move out of this before getting to the goal weight

In addition to the T3 issue mentioned by Susan, because it
works better to follow the entire process than to do the obvious
that treats Atkins like a fad diet. *I'll mention fad diet farther
down.

... what is the reason people go onto the next phase

I can't tell if you're a troll or if you're ignoring posts. *Following
a porcess that took several decades to tune works better than
some fad diet someone can dream up over night.

... is there something that is not good about the induction
phase...

Yes.

so far I have no problems with it,

Yes you do have problems with it - You are trying to cling
to it. *That's a problem.

and feel I can stay on it for a long time ...

Folks who stay on Induction have a higher drop out rate. *So
what if you feel now like you can stay on it longer. *Lots of
folks who dropped out stated that before dropping out.

Oh, please. Here we go again. There is no basis for this statement
that people who stick with induction longer have a higher drop out
rate. Atkins had no problem with people staying on induction
longer. In fact, he suggested that before moving on to the OWL, they
consider staying with induction longer.

Now, I do agree that for someone with only 20 lbs to lose, it's OK to
move from induction after the normal 2 weeks, especially if he drops 4
lbs in that time. One of the points of the whole plan is that you're
supposed to stay on a reduced carb plan to keep the weight off. By
transitioning to it over time by slowly adding carbs back, you get
eased into it. Also, moving past induction allows more food choices,
which makes Atkins easier to stick with.






Fad diet -

I worry if I go off Atkins or don't stick with it

Induction is not Atkins. *It is part of Atkins. *Since the
direction say you should now be moving to PreMaintenance
you are definitely not sticking to it right now.

and go back to carbs

Reality check. *Have you read the carb ladder that tells
what carbs to try when? *Then explain to me why adding
more cauliflower equals "go back to carbs". *You're not
making sense here because you aren't depicting what
Atkins actually is in the book. *A hint - The first week of
OWL has a carb quota of 25 net and you get there with
extra servings of low carb veggies not a large spoon of
chocolate cake.

I will be even more susceptible to them putting the weight on.

Treating Atkins like a fad diet does put you into a pattern
of crash and burn, lament, regain, waiting too long to return,
coming back, insisting on over doing it, crashing and buring
again. *Start today to not be in that cycle. *Set you carb
quota to 25 like it says in the book and follow the process
as it is written.