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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
The atkins diet ....
Because then you are either overeating and fat or you are hungry all the
time. And I have lost weight by eating--eating different things than I used to eat. I eat less but that is because I am not as hungry as I was eating lots of carby food. In , Rob Chesebrough stated | Yes, apparently I combined the two. Ketones are the backup source of | energy for the body when glucose is not available. Once in the backup | mode you’re in a state of ketosis not ketoacidosis. The body is | starved for carbs, not food. | | Now can you help me understand the purpose of putting the body in the | “back-up” mode for life? If it’s not going to be for life, why | bother? | | Why not limit caloric intake? Why not give the body water, lean | protein sources, complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fats? That’s | what it wants to function at its best so treat it right. Why instead | of all this would one put their body into its back-up mode of ketosis | full time? | | Why let food manufacturers put new buzz words (Low Carb) on their | labels to sell products loaded with calories but low in carbs? So | people think they’ll lose weight by eating? | | I just don’t get it. | | Rob | 185/155/160 | | |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
The atkins diet ....
"Rob Chesebrough" wrote in message
... Yes, apparently I combined the two. Ketones are the backup source of energy for the body when glucose is not available. Once in the backup mode you’re in a state of ketosis not ketoacidosis. The body is starved for carbs, not food. Now can you help me understand the purpose of putting the body in the “back-up” mode for life? If it’s not going to be for life, why bother? Why not limit caloric intake? Why not give the body water, lean protein sources, complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fats? That’s what it wants to function at its best so treat it right. Why instead of all this would one put their body into its back-up mode of ketosis full time? There's more than a bit of evidence that suggests that ketosis is actually our natural state, and that glucose burning is the 'backup mode'. -- Peace, Pen -- Pawbreakers - The Candy for Cats! http://www.pawbreakers.com |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
The atkins diet ....
"Rob Chesebrough" wrote in message
... Yes, apparently I combined the two. Ketones are the backup source of energy for the body when glucose is not available. Once in the backup mode you’re in a state of ketosis not ketoacidosis. The body is starved for carbs, not food. Now can you help me understand the purpose of putting the body in the “back-up” mode for life? If it’s not going to be for life, why bother? Why not limit caloric intake? Why not give the body water, lean protein sources, complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fats? That’s what it wants to function at its best so treat it right. Why instead of all this would one put their body into its back-up mode of ketosis full time? There's more than a bit of evidence that suggests that ketosis is actually our natural state, and that glucose burning is the 'backup mode'. -- Peace, Pen -- Pawbreakers - The Candy for Cats! http://www.pawbreakers.com |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
The atkins diet ....
After completing this, I see that I have gone on quite a bit too long. Sorry
about that, but there were a lot of questions to answer. "Rob Chesebrough" wrote in message ... Yes, apparently I combined the two. Ketones are the backup source of energy for the body when glucose is not available. Once in the backup mode you’re in a state of ketosis not ketoacidosis. The body is starved for carbs, not food. Now can you help me understand the purpose of putting the body in the “back-up” mode for life? If it’s not going to be for life, why bother? Actually, I think we are basically built for eating meat, fruit, and whatever edible plants that can be found. The only primate that I know of that does not eat a lot of meat is the gorilla. All the rest eat bugs and small animals, as well as whatever they can steal from other predators. Meat is highly prized in the chimpanzee and baboon world. I didn't know that until I did some reading about primates to find out if we are classified as meat eaters, vegetarian, or omnivore. I believe we are omnivores capable of eating both meat and vegetation. A good survival mechanism. The problem with our present day diet is that most of the plants we grow for food do not grow that large or sweet in the wild. Along with the fact that we refine our grains so that they are too easily digestable. Long ago, people discovered that if they grew their own plants, it would be easier than walking for miles to find what you were looking for when meat was scarce, so agricultural societies developed. Without this event, we would have been largely nomadic and it would be difficult to build a society. So it was a good thing in the beginning. I just think we have too much high calorie food available now along with a more sedentary lifestyle. I don't think we were built to be able to get our calories so easily from plants. Yes, the body would prefer to burn the more efficient carbohydrates, but the foods we were meant to eat to get the carbohydrates are not as calorie dense as what we grow, and grains are nearly impossible to get to the starchy part without intervention by cracking, or cooking. Starchy vegetables and fruits only grow in season as well. So, to answer your question, I believe we are meant to eat meat and complex carbs, but definitely not the refined sugars, grains and large calorie rich vegetables, and that a state of ketosis was actually what our ancestors were in most of the time. Why not limit caloric intake? Why not give the body water, lean protein sources, complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fats? That’s what it wants to function at its best so treat it right. Why instead of all this would one put their body into its back-up mode of ketosis full time? It is tougher in modern society to limit calories because of the availability of food. High calorie carbohydrate foods overwhelm our bodies. With all that extra energy, the body is forced to deal with it some how. The high concentration of carbohydrates causes a spike in insulin because it is too easily digestable. When, the carbohydrates are used up, the body can't react in time to shut off the insulin. Now we get lower blood sugar than normal and it causes us to eat more because we feel hungrier. This up and down cycle causes us to over eat more than we should and the excess is deposited as fat. Water is of course the best thing we should be drinking. Our meat should not be too lean about 2/3rds of the calories should be fat. New studies are showing that high cholesterol is caused by eating too high carb of a diet. High blood sugar is damaging to the artery walls and the body makes extra cholesterol to repair the dammage. It's not the cholesterol and fat we eat that makes us overweight and unhealthy. So your right about the protein and complex carbohydrates, but the protein should not be lean. Fat is nessacary for our survival to make hormones and supply the energy our bodies were built to use. Carbohydrates happen to be more efficient, but so is alcohol, which is used up before carbohydrates. So I don't think that ketosis is the back-up mode. Carbs are the back-up mode for us. All of the prior studies on high fat, were also high carb. Researchers fed the subjects cake, ice cream, donuts, french fries, potatoes with butter etc. Then when cholesterol levels went up, they blamed it on the high fat intake. Now we better understand that high fat and high carb is a lethal combination. Our bodies are designed to eat fat with protein. If the researchers were to have given the subjects fatty meats, they would have found that cholesterol actually went down. Why let food manufacturers put new buzz words (Low Carb) on their labels to sell products loaded with calories but low in carbs? So people think they’ll lose weight by eating? I agree totally on this issue. I have not bought any of their products. The idea of lo-carb is to eat natural complex carbohydrates, which are fruits and vegetables in reasonable amounts. The products that they make are what a lot of people here consider to be fake or as we call them, frankenfoods. They are preying on people that want to eat low carb, but don't want to give up what they were eating before. Most of these products are in fact still to high in carbs for the proper way of eating this way. They use tricks with "net carbs" or "impact carbs" on the label. Sugar alcohols are widely used, but not consideres as a real carb, so are deducted from the total causing confusion. There is a lot of money involved with refined products so the manufactures want to keep their stuff on the shelves and seem to be willing to do anything to do so. Any of the other lo-carb products try to replace the carbs with low grade protein matter and the resulting food usually doesn't taste very good. It has given real low carbohydrate diets a bad name. The marketing of this stuff is just crazy right now. It's everywhere you go, and people are darn sick of all the hype. I believe the food industry doesn't care if we eat good food, just as long as it tastes great so they can sell it. If you have read any of the popular diet books, they speak endlessly about the evilness of high carb foods, but realize that some people are not willing to give up their favorite foods. Most of the people that I know that have tried the diet fail because they are not happy with eating meat and vegetables every day. They still want their pizzas, bread and pastas. I like the way I eat now. If I was eating before, like you say we should, I'm sure I would not have gotten overweight. But not enough emphysis was placed on eating carbs that are healthy. The indication I got as I was growing up was that any carbohydrates were good for you for energy. Only sugar was said to be bad. I never ate that much sweets, but always had potatoes, rice or pastas, and breads for most of my meals. Sorry this was so long, but I felt that you were truly interested in why people think it is a good diet, even if you do not want to follow it. I can understand the confusion because if anyone who hasn't done any research goes by what they see in the grocery aisles or what is said on the media, it seems like a bizzare fad diet, when in fact it is about eating unrefined carbohydrates and meats in their natural forms, and that doesn't sound bad to me at all. Not all lo-carbers eat those weird foods, but some believe it is neccessary that their are food choices available so they can stick with it. I just don’t get it. Hope this helps to understand that it is actually a good way to eat, but has been warped by food manufactures and the media to make money on it so it looks like just another fad diet. I don't get it either. Tom Rob 185/155/160 Tom wrote: How else would you explain the body being in Ketosis? Does the body do this when it's fed normally? The point of the Induction Phase is limit carbs to get the body into Ketosis, right? Type “ketosis” into a google search, you’ll find your starvation proof. Ketosis is a body’s reaction to starvation. Fueling itself with ketones because it’s in trouble. Are you confusing ketoacidosis with ketosis? I've seen articles that call the cannibalization of body tissue due to diabetes as ketosis. This is ketoacidosis and is dangerous when you are a diabetic. Your body is not getting enough energy from the food you are eating because it can not be processed. Ketosis is different. It is the process that the body uses to break down it's own body fat. This is totally natural and is how the body uses it's own fat stores for energy. If there is an absence of carbohydrates, then the body is forced to use the next most efficient fuel, which is fat, and is called being in ketosis. If there is enough protein ingested, the body will not have to derive it from it's stores of protein, which is of course muscle tissue. Breaking down muscle tissue for energy is inefficient and is only done as a last resort. The body will only break down it's own tissue if there is a lack of protein in the diet. You can put your body into a state of ketoacidosis by not eating enough food. It would then be forced to take energy from fat and muscle tissue. Fat would of course be used for energy and what ever other functions, like making hormones or bile. Muscle tissue would be broken down for body repair and some for energy. You can live on a diet devoid of carbohydrates. The Inuit people are proof of that. But you must have protein and fat to survive. Again, ketoacidosis is starvation mode either by lack of food, or that the body can't process the food because of diabetes. Ketosis is the breaking down of the bodies own fat stores to provide energy and is a totally natural process. How else would we burn the fat off if not by ketosis. Even the traditional low calorie diets will produce some ketosis, but it won't be able to be measured on the keto sticks unless you eat to few calories, because your still burning some fat. Eating lo-carb is still low calorie, but you are not hungry all the time which is handy when your trying to lose weight. Tom 210/178/180 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
The atkins diet ....
In article ,
says... Now can you help me understand the purpose of putting the body in the =3Fback-up=3F mode for life? If it=3Fs not going to be for life, why bother? Once a person reaches goal weight, they up their carbs and are no longer in ketosis (I think). They can still eat low-carb, though. Why let food manufacturers put new buzz words (Low Carb) on their labels to sell products loaded with calories but low in carbs? So people think they=3Fll lose weight by eating? WE have no control over what food manufacturers do. Most of the people posting here recommend AVOIDING the majority of low-carb products on the market today. I totally agree that manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon of what they think will be a quick sell to the gullible and uninformed, just as they did with low- fat products. People who actually READ labels and pay attention to what the manufacturer considers to be a "serving" are less likely to fall into that trap. FTR, some of us DO count calories, as well as carbs. -- Saffire 205/149/125 - 5'1.5" Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
The atkins diet ....
Which "carby foods" have you given up? Were they mostly simple carbs?
Has your fat intake increased or decreased? Do you have more muscle and less weight or simply just less weight? FOB wrote: Because then you are either overeating and fat or you are hungry all the time. And I have lost weight by eating--eating different things than I used to eat. I eat less but that is because I am not as hungry as I was eating lots of carby food. In , Rob Chesebrough stated | Yes, apparently I combined the two. Ketones are the backup source of | energy for the body when glucose is not available. Once in the backup | mode you’re in a state of ketosis not ketoacidosis. The body is | starved for carbs, not food. | | Now can you help me understand the purpose of putting the body in the | “back-up” mode for life? If it’s not going to be for life, why | bother? | | Why not limit caloric intake? Why not give the body water, lean | protein sources, complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fats? That’s | what it wants to function at its best so treat it right. Why instead | of all this would one put their body into its back-up mode of ketosis | full time? | | Why let food manufacturers put new buzz words (Low Carb) on their | labels to sell products loaded with calories but low in carbs? So | people think they’ll lose weight by eating? | | I just don’t get it. | | Rob | 185/155/160 | | |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
The atkins diet ....
Which "carby foods" have you given up? Were they mostly simple carbs?
Has your fat intake increased or decreased? Do you have more muscle and less weight or simply just less weight? FOB wrote: Because then you are either overeating and fat or you are hungry all the time. And I have lost weight by eating--eating different things than I used to eat. I eat less but that is because I am not as hungry as I was eating lots of carby food. In , Rob Chesebrough stated | Yes, apparently I combined the two. Ketones are the backup source of | energy for the body when glucose is not available. Once in the backup | mode you’re in a state of ketosis not ketoacidosis. The body is | starved for carbs, not food. | | Now can you help me understand the purpose of putting the body in the | “back-up” mode for life? If it’s not going to be for life, why | bother? | | Why not limit caloric intake? Why not give the body water, lean | protein sources, complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fats? That’s | what it wants to function at its best so treat it right. Why instead | of all this would one put their body into its back-up mode of ketosis | full time? | | Why let food manufacturers put new buzz words (Low Carb) on their | labels to sell products loaded with calories but low in carbs? So | people think they’ll lose weight by eating? | | I just don’t get it. | | Rob | 185/155/160 | | |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
The atkins diet ....
Can you send me a link to this evidence? I'm not ready to believe that
ketosis is supposed to happen other than between meals. Penelope Baker wrote: "Rob Chesebrough" wrote in message ... Yes, apparently I combined the two. Ketones are the backup source of energy for the body when glucose is not available. Once in the backup mode you’re in a state of ketosis not ketoacidosis. The body is starved for carbs, not food. Now can you help me understand the purpose of putting the body in the “back-up” mode for life? If it’s not going to be for life, why bother? Why not limit caloric intake? Why not give the body water, lean protein sources, complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fats? That’s what it wants to function at its best so treat it right. Why instead of all this would one put their body into its back-up mode of ketosis full time? There's more than a bit of evidence that suggests that ketosis is actually our natural state, and that glucose burning is the 'backup mode'. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
The atkins diet ....
Can you send me a link to this evidence? I'm not ready to believe that
ketosis is supposed to happen other than between meals. Penelope Baker wrote: "Rob Chesebrough" wrote in message ... Yes, apparently I combined the two. Ketones are the backup source of energy for the body when glucose is not available. Once in the backup mode you’re in a state of ketosis not ketoacidosis. The body is starved for carbs, not food. Now can you help me understand the purpose of putting the body in the “back-up” mode for life? If it’s not going to be for life, why bother? Why not limit caloric intake? Why not give the body water, lean protein sources, complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fats? That’s what it wants to function at its best so treat it right. Why instead of all this would one put their body into its back-up mode of ketosis full time? There's more than a bit of evidence that suggests that ketosis is actually our natural state, and that glucose burning is the 'backup mode'. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dr. ATKINS IS A QUACK | Irv Finkleman | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | March 31st, 2004 12:37 PM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 135 | February 14th, 2004 04:56 PM |
WHAT'S THIS? Atkins Revises the Diet! | Witchy Way | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 83 | February 14th, 2004 03:25 AM |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works | Jim Marnott | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 108 | December 12th, 2003 03:12 AM |