Ketosis: Another Difference Between Atkins and South Beach

Someone was just saying the other day that there are no real differences
in the two diets. Ketosis is just not anywhere on the South Beach
agenda. This is not a value judgment for one or the other, merely a
fact.

Elinor Dashwood wrote:

Someone was just saying the other day that there are no real differences
in the two diets. Ketosis is just not anywhere on the South Beach
agenda. This is not a value judgment for one or the other, merely a
fact.

All diets induce ketosis if you lose weight. Ketosis *IS* how the
human body burns fat into energy. While Atkins focused on
ketosis(BDK), his ideas are more theory than fact since he wasn't a
researcher or a biologist. His diet is a practitioner's result. Even
when not dieting we all tend to slip into ketosis somewhat at night.
I'm still not convinced about the idea that at some low carb level
your body "shifts gears" and makes for better fat burning. And even if
it does happen, the difference may be so small that it isn't worth
acheiving.

I actually think some of the emphasis on ketosis, like the strips, are
a negative in the diet--much like constantly trying to make the diet
appeal to those that don't want to count calories. That's more of a
marketing deal to snare people into giving the diet a chance. The
whole induction is structured to try and sell this WOE to people. I'm
sure he had lots of patients who were very resistant to dieting,
period. Unfortunately I think long-term success needs greater
attention (like counting carbs/calories) for most people who can
really benefit from the diet(the obese).




DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/304/Apr-299/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-50 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

DigitalVinyl writes:
I'm still not convinced about the idea that at some low carb level
your body "shifts gears" and makes for better fat burning.

There is some evidence that long-term ketosis causes adaptations that
make fat burning more efficient; for example, long-term LC means that
if you drop out of ketosis you can get back in quicker, as if ketosis
becomes the preferred mode instead of secondary.

I agree it probably doesn't make a difference, except perhaps for
people with insulin problems where it's not ketosis but the reduction
of insulin that's important.

DJ Delorie wrote:


DigitalVinyl writes:
I'm still not convinced about the idea that at some low carb level
your body "shifts gears" and makes for better fat burning.

There is some evidence that long-term ketosis causes adaptations that
make fat burning more efficient; for example, long-term LC means that
if you drop out of ketosis you can get back in quicker, as if ketosis
becomes the preferred mode instead of secondary.

Actually people here have talked, anecdotely(sp?), about having
greater trouble getting back into ketosis after their first run of
LC'ing. Also there is the dread "metabolism crash" where staying too
low for too long cause the body to store all carbs as fat. At that
point you're probably still in ketosis but efficiency goes out the
window.

I agree it probably doesn't make a difference, except perhaps for
people with insulin problems where it's not ketosis but the reduction
of insulin that's important.

I think the insulin control and appetite control is the big secret
behind carbs. Until I find a CCLL I'm not convinced of the BDK
theories of efficiency. If Atkins was correct then if I surpass my
CCLL I will drop out of "ketosis" & my weight loss will drop
significantly. I'm betting, since Atkins didn't push for calorie
counting, that at some carb Level people start to overeat, indulging
in too many temptations. This probably causes the stoppage of weight
loss--not the carb level. Until I prove this out for myself I'll be
sitting on the fence on that issue.


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/304/Apr-299/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-50 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

DigitalVinyl writes:
Actually people here have talked, anecdotely(sp?), about having
greater trouble getting back into ketosis after their first run of
LC'ing.

I wonder if this can be attributed to the CCLL crash due to
insufficient carbs? My evidence is Lyle's observations of cyclic
diets (CKD), which is a different situation.

Also there is the dread "metabolism crash" where staying too low for
too long cause the body to store all carbs as fat.

Huh? Carbs aren't stored as fat unless your carb intake alone meets
your caloric needs for the day, yes? Has there been evidence of this
not being true?

But I can see a metabolic crash causing more *fat* to be stored,
simply because the excess is now greater.

If Atkins was correct then if I surpass my CCLL I will drop out of
"ketosis" & my weight loss will drop significantly.

The only thing I can think of that would affect this is if a metabolic
problem caused fat to be stored when it shouldn't, causing caloric
deficiencies elsewhere in the system. For normal metabolisms, I
wouldn't think it would make a difference (it doesn't for me) but for
abnormal ones, who knows?

I'm betting, since Atkins didn't push for calorie counting, that at
some carb Level people start to overeat,

I've always suspected this was true, that the CCLL was simply a "food
throttle". Not getting enough calories? Eat more carbs, be hungrier,
thus eat more food. The recent evidence that carbs help the metabolic
cycle refutes that theory somewhat, though.

But metabolism is too complex for me to say for sure what's happening.
Heck, if I knew, *I* would be the one with the book deal :-)

In article , Elinor
Dashwood wrote:

Someone was just saying the other day that there are no real differences
in the two diets. Ketosis is just not anywhere on the South Beach
agenda. This is not a value judgment for one or the other, merely a
fact.

are you saying that ketosis is not discussed in the SB book, or that
ketosis does not occur on a properly followed SB diet?

Funny, when I was browsing through the SB book I could have sworn it said that
you might go into ketosis on phase 1. But I didn't bother buying it, so I can't
back that up. Too bad they charge for info on their website.

LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/216/140
& hubby- 6' 310/233/180

In article ,
Ignoramus7694 wrote:

In article , Elinor
Dashwood wrote:

Someone was just saying the other day that there are no real differences
in the two diets. Ketosis is just not anywhere on the South Beach
agenda. This is not a value judgment for one or the other, merely a
fact.

are you saying that ketosis is not discussed in the SB book, or that
ketosis does not occur on a properly followed SB diet?


I am saying precisely what I said above--- ketosis is not on the SB
agenda. IOW, it has nothing to do with the diet. It is not something
SB dieters ever need to think about. It is therefore a significant
difference between the two diets. I hope this clarifies things for you.

In article ,
ospam (Susan ) wrote:

I am saying precisely what I said above--- ketosis is not on the SB
agenda. IOW, it has nothing to do with the diet. It is not something
SB dieters ever need to think about. It is therefore a significant
difference between the two diets. I hope this clarifies things for you.


Except it's bull****, in fact.

The Atkins diet plan doesn't require any attention to ketosis either, but the
early, very unfortunate Atkins promotion of ketostix did...
{...}


You'd never know that from all the posts here about ketosis. I'd never
even heard of it before I started reading this NG. No need to get so
upset over simple observations, Susan. Calm down.

In article ,
DigitalVinyl wrote:

Elinor Dashwood wrote:

Someone was just saying the other day that there are no real differences
in the two diets. Ketosis is just not anywhere on the South Beach
agenda. This is not a value judgment for one or the other, merely a
fact.

All diets induce ketosis if you lose weight.....


Accuracy notwithstanding, that is irrelevant to the point. As I said,
ketosis is simply not on the SB agenda. I find it amazing that this
fact seems to invoke such a negative reaction. Can someone please
explain this?

snip

In article ,
(LCer09) wrote:

In article ,
Elinor Dashwood wrote:

Someone was just saying the other day that there are no real
differences in the two diets. Ketosis is just not anywhere on the
South Beach agenda. This is not a value judgment for one or the
other, merely a fact.

are you saying that ketosis is not discussed in the SB book, or that
ketosis does not occur on a properly followed SB diet?

Funny, when I was browsing through the SB book I could have sworn it
said that you might go into ketosis on phase 1.

I don't recall that but that is not the point. Once again, ketosis is
not a focus of the SB diet.

...But I didn't bother buying it, so I can't back that up. Too bad
they charge for info on their website.

Oh there is a website? Will someone please explain to me why this fact
(about ketosis not being even a minor focus of the SB diet) is so
obviously upsetting to some people? I am truly baffled at the reaction.