Eug goes on a HIGH carb diet. - I am not a supporter of low carb diets.

[Eug]

I'm about as un-Atkins as they come. The Atkins diet makes no sense in terms of a HEALTHY diet. Sure you may (or may not) lose weight, but the bottom line is it's just another fad diet.

So I decided to take my own advice and lose a few of those winter lbs in a non-fad-diet way. I'd gained 8-9 lbs since last year. I'm not fat at 5'7" 160 lbs, but it was the most I'd ever weighed in my life.

It's been 4 weeks now, and I've increased my exercise (mainly because it's now warm enough to ride my road bike) and I've decreased my overall caloric intake. Basically, I now eat until I'm full, not until I'm stuffed (like I used to several times a week). I'd guess my carb intake is nearly 60% of the calories but I still eat fat and protein (esp. the latter) in sufficient amounts to keep me happy. No cheesecake dessert after a 12 oz steak dinner any more though, and I'll snack on an orange and a banana instead of a chocolate bar now. And I still often go to restaurants - I'm just a little more choosy as what dishes I eat and I don't stuff myself silly.

And yes, I've lost 3-4 lbs in a month. I don't think keeping it off will be an issue, at least until winter comes again. I'd actually to INCREASE my caloric intake a bit over current levels to compensate for my riding just to my weight constant.

So I again remind people, basically the only way to lose weight is to cut the calories and increase exercise. How you choose to cut those calories is up to you, but I choose to cut the calories in a sensible manner, and stay away from fad diets.

-----

Edited to make the title a little less inflammatory.

 

[Looney]

High protein/low carb diet has been around for at least 10 years (that's how long i've been aware of it)... so i hardly think it's a fad, especially considering that almost all new diets that come out these days are based upon this (body for life, CKD, ketogenic, etc).

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
High protein/low carb diet has been around for at least 10 years (that's how long i've been aware of it)... so i hardly think it's a fad, especially considering that almost all new diets that come out these days are based upon this (body for life, CKD, ketogenic, etc).

And according to the nutritionists and docs, most are also fad diets. Actually, Atkins' diet has been around for much longer than 10 years, but that doesn't change the fact that most authorities consider it gobbledygook.

The most recommended diet is still 60% carbs (from a good mix of sources), 30% fat, and 10% protein, but in moderation, with plenty of exercise. Simple as that.

And again, I'll reiterate that weight loss does not necessarily equal healthy diet.

 

[luv2chill]

There is proven medical soundness to a diet which restricts carbohydrates. Even if one doesn't want to cut them as low as the low-carb diets prescribe, ANYONE can eat more healthily by cutting down on the immense number of carbohydrates consumed in this culture, especially the higher glycemic index carbs (at the top of the list are refined sugars, starchy boxed foods, etc).

As for what way of eating works best, that is a highly individual thing. IMHO, the Atkins and diets like it work best for people who have a lot more to lose than eight pounds. Without knowing anything else about you other than height/weight, you appear to be within the range of a healthy BMI. Age and body fat percentage would be necessary to make a better prediction.

The premise behind Atkins and like diets is that for some people, excess carbohydrates cause the body to lose its sensitivity to the hormone insulin. Insulin is crucial to life... it allows cells to use nutrients consumed (it also is what allows body fat to form inside fat cells). In people whose sensitivity to insulin decreases, their body secretes more insulin to get the job done, which causes more energy to be stored as fat. Restricting carbohydrates to a very low level causes less insulin to be secreted and allows the body to "wean" itself off of such high insulin levels. The ketosis aspect is the other key to these diets.

In my anecdotal experience, people with high insulin resistance tend to do much better on a diet that minimizes carbohydrate intake. Not only do they successfully shed fat and keep it off, but they also feel better and are more energized. On the other hand, people with normal or less severe insulin resistance (and as a result tend to be less overweight) don't feel good with a low-carb intake and do better restricting calories (leading to a lower-fat, higher carb intake).

Bottom line: Everyone is different. Some people (usually people who have at least 10-20 pounds of fat to lose) will do very well with a low-carbohydrate diet. Others will meet with more success on a calorically-restricted diet. EVERYONE would do well to throw the "food pyramid" out the window as a guideline for healthy eating. Whether you're morbidly obese or at your ideal weight, carbohydrates (especially high GI ones) should be controlled like any other macronutrient. Many people still fear fat as being the only thing that will cause one to be fat. That couldn't be more wrong. It is OK to incorporate moderate levels of unsaturated fat, as well as protein and low-GI carbs and maintain a healthy weight, get sufficient nutrition, and keep your organs healthy. The Zone diet comes closest to this balance. IMHO.

My mantra "everything in moderation" applies to nutrition as well.

l2c

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
High protein/low carb diet has been around for at least 10 years (that's how long i've been aware of it)... so i hardly think it's a fad, especially considering that almost all new diets that come out these days are based upon this (body for life, CKD, ketogenic, etc).

And according to the nutritionists and docs, most are also fad diets. Actually, Atkins' diet has been around for much longer than 10 years, but that doesn't change the fact that most authorities consider it gobbledygook.

The most recommended diet is still 60% carbs (from a good mix of sources), 30% fat, and 10% protein, but in moderation, with plenty of exercise. Simple as that.

And again, I'll reiterate that weight loss does not necessarily equal healthy diet.

Well it's obvious you haven't read anything on the atkins diet... because you'll know that when insulin is low, fat intake and bodyfat takes a different course in your body. And there has been medical research that proved that a low carb diet actually lowers blood cholesterol levels.

Also, diabetes is getting to be a bigger and bigger problem in western countries.... fact is, you'll never seen somebody that practices a low carb diet get diabetes.

 

[Aceshigh]

The most recommended diet is still 60% carbs (from a good mix of sources), 30% fat, and 10% protein, but in moderation, with plenty of exercise. Simple as that.

The most recommended diets certainly do not advocate a higher percentage of fat than protein.

30% fat and 10% protein? That is very not advisable. Switch the percentages around and it would be better.

 

[Eug]

In my anecdotal experience, people with high insulin resistance tend to do much better on a diet that minimizes carbohydrate intake. Not only do they successfully shed fat and keep it off, but they also feel better and more energized. On the other hand, people with normal or less severe insulin resistance (and as a result tend to be less overweight) don't feel good with a low-carb intake and do better restricting calories (leading to a lower-fat, higher carb intake).

People with TRUE insulin resistance are called diabetics (Type II). Yes they should benefit from a lower carb diet, but they also shouldn't be on an Atkins'-like regimen, because it would make them very sick. They are also prone to things like heart disease and high blood pressure, and a high fat diet would simply make things worse. Hence, the recommendation is to have a moderate carb intake with LOWER overall fat intake. This is well documented to keep those with insulin resistance healthy.

Those who do successfully lose weight with severe low carb diets, do so because they are restricting calories. They are high fat diets in the sense of proportion of the diet, but overall caloric intake is still lower... hence the point is still simply to restrict intake and to increase output (exercise), but to do so in a healthy fashion.

 

[TheNinja]

10% protein is not enough and 60% carb seems quite high. I've always heard 40/30/30 - as in carbo/protein/fat. I prefer around a 50/30/20 with protein at least 50%, carbo, then fat but I"m trying to gain muscle not lose a lot of weight.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Eug -

I suggest that you educate yourself on the Atkins diet before you dismiss it. It actually works, and can be extrememly healthy.
Also, many authorities are now on the low carb bandwagon. It really has revolutionized the way that people are approaching weight loss.

Read Dr. Atkins' book.

 

[Jeraden]

I'm confused by your post. Were you on Atkins and just recently switched to a high carb diet, or were you not 'dieting' at all and recently started? If you haven't been doing Atkins at all, I don't understand why you even bring it up? There are plenty of ways to lose weight, Atkins being one of them, but I don't really see why you single out Atkins as being a bad fad diet?

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Aceshigh

The most recommended diet is still 60% carbs (from a good mix of sources), 30% fat, and 10% protein, but in moderation, with plenty of exercise. Simple as that.

The most recommended diets certainly do not advocate a higher percentage of fat than protein.

30% fat and 10% protein? That is very not advisable. Switch the percentages around and it would be better.

Incorrect.

I don't mean 30 percent weight in fat. I mean 30% fat calories. It would be virtually impossible to have a 10% fat intake, unless you did something drastic like eat lots of diet shakes and amino acid supplements.

You might be able to decrease fat to say 20+% though.

 

[Eug]

I'm confused by your post. Were you on Atkins and just recently switched to a high carb diet, or were you not 'dieting' at all and recently started? If you haven't been doing Atkins at all, I don't understand why you even bring it up? There are plenty of ways to lose weight, Atkins being one of them, but I don't really see why you single out Atkins as being a bad fad diet?

I singled it out because it is the epitome of fad diets. I will never be on the Atkins diet because of the principles behind it.

Read Dr. Atkins' book.

I will read the complete book at some point, but I glanced thru some chapters many years ago. The theories in there are far from being scientific. At best, they are simplistic and potentially misleading. I will admit however, that some of the problems with the diet are with improper interpretation of the diet by dieters. Atkins does not advocate a completely carb-less diet, nor does he advise 14 eggs per day. However, too many people see it as being that way.

The main benefit of high fat is satiety and decreased gastric/intestinal motility, also leading to increased satiety. And you may lose weight this way. However, there are other problems associated with a very high fat dietary content, even if you do manage to cut calories a bit a lose a bit of weight.

10% protein is not enough and 60% carb seems quite high. I've always heard 40/30/30 - as in carbo/protein/fat. I prefer around a 50/30/20 with protein at least 50%, carbo, then fat but I"m trying to gain muscle not lose a lot of weight.

I would have no objection to a 50/30/20 regimen. 30% protein would be difficult to get without increasing the fat as well.

 

[Looney]

nor does he advise 14 eggs per day

We must have read a different book. According to Atkins, there isn't a more pure food you can get but eggs.

 

[Looney]

I singled it out because it is the epitome of fad diets. I will never be on the Atkins diet because of the principles behind it.

It's not a fad diet... it's been around longer than 10 years. Maybe you should have a look at what the word 'fad' means.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

nor does he advise 14 eggs per day

We must have read a different book. According to Atkins, there isn't a more pure food you can get but eggs.

Uh, I hope you're not eating a dozen eggs a day...

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

nor does he advise 14 eggs per day

We must have read a different book. According to Atkins, there isn't a more pure food you can get but eggs.

Uh, I hope you're not eating a dozen eggs a day...

For years! And i use to get my blood checked monthly.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Eug
I'm about as un-Atkins as they come. The Atkins diet makes no sense in terms of a HEALTHY diet. Sure you may (or may not) lose weight, but the bottom line is it's just another fad diet..

Sounds like you're trolling here. I tried the Atkins diet and lost 50-60 lbs. I'm probably in much better shape than you are. High protein/low carb diets are NOT fad diets. If you look at the diet that humans evolved on, you'd see that they ate mostly meats and green leafy vegetables... much the same as the Atkins diet. It wasn't until recently that sugar has been added to almost everyone you eat, and breads are heavily processed.

Do everyone a favor and educate yourself before you spout nonsense trolling the forum.

 

[StageLeft]

The way you've done it is not the way everyone has to do it, Eug For some people Atkins DOES work. However for the _vast freaking majority_ of people it is nothing more than a fad like you said. Even if somebody drops the weight on it keeping it off long term with the atkins has proven to be difficult for the majority of people. Studies show that. Of course even with calorie restriction/excercise diets most people gain the weight back, but the reason in both cases is that people fall off the horse. I asert that it's easier to fall off the horse with the atkins diet because of how restrictive it is.

For most fad diets are a waste of time. The solution to weight loss is found ever so simply in the cause of the problem: fat is gained by excess calories. Weight, therefore, is lost by insufficient calories. It's a psyiological fact and to decrease those calories excercise, or cutting back on calorie intake, or a combination of both can be used.

The key to weight loss is not how to do it but finding the willpower/determination. It is the missing link that so many people don't want to admit and so America spends billions a year in a sad, and normally failed, attempt to find a way around the willpower blockade. But it's a wall and you can't go around it. You have to take it head on. If you don't have the will to keep it off and do what needs to be done weight will never stay off.

 

[Eug]

Sounds like you're trolling here.

Call me a troll if you wish. That is your perogative. However, would a person posting in this forum saying that carbs are bad and Atkins rules be called a troll as well?

I tried the Atkins diet and lost 50-60 lbs. I'm probably in much better shape than you are.

Good for you, and I would not be surprised if you're in better shape than I am. Too bad you do not represent the vast majority of dieters (of any sort). (I am in better than average shape, but definitely can use some improvement.) Furthermore, people have lost 50 lbs on the grapefruit diets, etc. So what does that prove?

If you look at the diet that humans evolved on, you'd see that they ate mostly meats and green leafy vegetables... much the same as the Atkins diet. It wasn't until recently that sugar has been added to almost everyone you eat, and breads are heavily processed.

Actually, it depends on what time period, what location, etc. There are hunter-gatherers, as well as heavily agrarian societies in history. Interestingly, the latter may have lived longer than the former.

And who said we should be eating heavily processed sugary food?

The way you've done it is not the way everyone has to do it, Eug For some people Atkins DOES work.

Yes, I agree. However, I believe it bears repeating that the reason it may work (as you said) is through overall calorie reduction (as the studies have shown), and not because of the carb reduction per se.

There is no magic to these diets. The bottom line is that caloric input < output. Furthermore, will and determination is always helped with a set out regimen, whether it'd be Atkins or a more traditional diet. Perhaps that is part of the "magic" that some people experience with some diets.

BTW, I should also point out that a "high" carb diet does not necessarily mean higher than the average population's carb intake.

Indeed, many people with "high" carb diets eat LESS carbs than the average person with the same amount of activity. Yet that same average person may have what they think is a "moderate" carb diet by virtue of the fact as a proportion of total overall calories, the carbs aren't as high a percentage because the average diet has too much fat.

Carbs are not the issue, calories are. It's just that with a reduced caloric intake, most physicians and nutritionists feal that a well-balanced diet that would be the most healthy would require a proportionally relatively high carbohydrate intake. And of course, eating a few extra table spoons of sugar a few less tablespoons of oil per day does not equate to healthy eating.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The solution to weight loss is found ever so simply in the cause of the problem: fat is gained by excess calories. Weight, therefore, is lost by insufficient calories. It's a psyiological fact and to decrease those calories excercise, or cutting back on calorie intake, or a combination of both can be used.

It is not that simple. Fat contains more calories than carbohydrate, yet when I replaced my carb intake with fat intake, my total caloric intake INCREASED, yet I quickly begain losing weight.

I think a more accurate term would be "excess calories *absorbed*", since not all food you eat is digested. Lots of fat will pass right through you, as will a good percentage of whole grains.

 

[ndee]

Montignac Method is the best.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The solution to weight loss is found ever so simply in the cause of the problem: fat is gained by excess calories. Weight, therefore, is lost by insufficient calories. It's a psyiological fact and to decrease those calories excercise, or cutting back on calorie intake, or a combination of both can be used.

It is not that simple. Fat contains more calories than carbohydrate, yet when I replaced my carb intake with fat intake, my total caloric intake INCREASED, yet I quickly begain losing weight.

That is a common misconception. People on diets when asked to assess caloric intake themselves have consistently been shown in studies to inaccurately assess whether caloric intake has increased or decreased.

When using strict methods refereed by nutritionists to measure caloric intake, those who gained weight consistently had higher caloric intakes than needed, and those who lost weight consistently had lower caloric intake than needed. Indeed, in the Atkins group studied which did lose weight, they did so not by increasing fat calories, but by lowering overall calories.

Furthermore, people who cut out certain calories and don't lose weight have similarly been shown to have NOT changed caloric intake. For this reason it's not surprising that "diet" low-cal foods don't inherently cause a person to lose weight. They may simply eat more.

 

[StageLeft]

I think a more accurate term would be "excess calories *absorbed*", since not all food you eat is digested. Lots of fat will pass right through you, as will a good percentage of whole grains.

Yeah I'll give you that one. Kind of like WOW chips the actual energy in them is high but what your body can absorb is not so high because the fat is indigestible. So in that case your real calories in are high, it's just your poop lots out, so truly the amount absorbed is important.

When I personally called atkins part of the fad group for most is because of its recent claim to fame. It's been around for more than 10 years and high protein/low carb diets have been around for decades. It's only recently however that it came into public awareness on a grand scale and so many people have tried it looking for their magic bullet.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Eug
There is no magic to these diets. The bottom line is that caloric input < output. Furthermore, will and determination is always helped with a set out regimen, whether it'd be Atkins or a more traditional diet. Perhaps that is part of the "magic" that some people experience with some diets.

BTW, I should also point out that a "high" carb diet does not necessarily mean higher than the average population's carb intake.

Indeed, many people with "high" carb diets eat LESS carbs than the average person with the same amount of activity. Yet that same average person may have what they think is a "moderate" carb diet by virtue of the fact as a proportion of total overall calories, the carbs aren't as high a percentage because the average diet has too much fat.

Carbs are not the issue, calories are. It's just that with a reduced caloric intake, most physicians and nutritionists feal that a well-balanced diet that would be the most healthy would require a proportionally relatively high carbohydrate intake.

This is plain WRONG.

Take a look at the caloric value of fat, protein, and carbohydrate. Those who have a high fat/high protein diet will have a HIGHER caloric intake than someone with a low fat/protein, high carb diet.

I frequently see people spout this incorrect "fact", because it falls in line with what they were taught about gaining and losing weight. But the issue is not as simple as that. Some foods you eat are not fully digested, and much of it passes through you. Sugar will be processed very quickly and totally absorbed, while a large percentage of corn will pass right through your system. So it would be incorrect to count the total calories from sugar and corn and compare them, since one will be totally absorbed and the other will not. Also, some foods take a lot of energy to digest, and while they may be high in calories, many calories may be expended just trying to digest them. A more accurate value of food should be used, where it takes the net caloric value (after contained vs. energy spent digesting).

Also, some people are insulin sensitive, while others are insulin insensitive. Both these types of people will benefit from different diets. One will benefit from a high protein/fat diet, while the other will benefit from a high carb diet.

It goes much deeper than the simplistic "calorie in/calorie out" view which some people think is the case. It is not that simple.

 

[ndee]

Guys.... stop arguing and take a look at the Montignac method already.