Low Calorie Diet

Question:

Just wondering how having a low carb lifestyle lowers cholesterol. I have heard many stories of this and I just wanted to know exactly how that works.

Simple. Diets high in refined carbs causes the high cholesterol. Refined and manufactured carbs are not real food. Blood cholesterol is created by your body in response to a bad, unhealthy, high-carb diet. As soon as you normalize your diet to real food such as meat and real veggies your body is no longer out of balance and stressed nutritionally and blood lipids go back to normal. This may not be a real scientific or precise observation but it sure explains a lot in a general way. TC

Response:

*AmBeR* wrote : Just wondering how having a low carb lifestyle lowers cholesterol. I have heard many stories of this and I just wanted to know exactly how that works.

Super-simple version: The body creates its own cholesterol in response to what food you eat.  Eating sugar causes the body to make a lot.  Eat less sugar, make less cholesterol. Regular-simple version: Cholesterol is what the body uses to move fat around the body.  When gaining fat it moves into fat cells all over the body and that’s a slow process so it takes more cholesterol.  When losing fat the liver sweeps all fat out of the blood stream to burn it as fuel, a faster process, and that sweeping removes the cholesterol. There are plenty of postings on the deeper biochemisty of why eating fat lowers cholesterol.

Response:

Thanks.   Excellent piece of information, there are threee points of vagueness for me.

Whoa. I read it and thought it was interesting. I didn’t write it. LOL! LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/226/140 & hubby- 310/248/180

Response:

Thanks.   Excellent piece of information, there are threee points of vagueness for me. Whoa. I read it and thought it was interesting. I didn’t write it. LOL!

I realized that–although I thought the end was paraphrasing by you. just wanted to point out, that while it seems to make sense there are unexplained bits that are simply ignored or glossed over.  Traditional medicine and science has done this forever, and low-carb advocates need to realize that doing it for the promotion of low-carb is just as wrong as all the simplifications of the past on the benefits of high-carb/low-fat. Still thanks, that was a very good article. Gave me a much better understanding of some of those processes. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/226/140 & hubby- 310/248/180

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/328/200 Atkins since 1/12/2004

Response:

Thanks.   Excellent piece of information, there are threee points of vagueness for me. 1) HDL, what is considered an HDL and where does it comes from. The term HDL only figures in the explanation when describing the VLDL B-100’s absorbing existing HDLs. But there is no explanation of where/why the HDL exists or what created them.  HDLs have the B100 identifier which passes to liver creating VLDL B-100s, which will become bad LDL. At first I thought HDLs were simply the new fat-stuffed chylomicrons. But the presnece of B100 means that as they reduce they would become an VLDL B100, same as liver produced VLDLs. 2) Cholesterol. Does all Chylomicrons-B48s from the gut have cholesterol or does it depend upon diet. Does evey liver produced VLDL-B100 have cholesterol–is it produced there by the demand of converting sugar to fat? 3) VLDL and LDLs have cholesterol in them. VLDL are "absorbed" or used by the liver. What happens to the cholesterol in them? Waste, clogged arteries, recycled back into the blood stream?  If every lipoprotein has insoluble cholesterol (is that a requirement?) then there is a concern of what happens to it when the VLDL is absorbed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This was interesting. It gets to the technical bits at the end. http://www.redflagsweekly.com/ WHY THE ATKINS DIET IS HEALTHY By RFD Columnist Malcolm Kendrick MbChB, MRCGP I was idly watching a programme on the Atkins diet last night which, to my surprise, was reasonably balanced. Yes folks, the Atkins diet has crossed the pond to reach the United Kingdom. Although, in reality, all it is doing is returning. After all we invented it nearly one hundred and fifty years ago. A man called Banting promoted a diet pretty much indistinguishable from that of Atkins in 1863. In fact, the verb to

Question:

Well put Jay Jay. Roxan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – while dieting. The idea scares me. Thanks The current thinking – inevitably, it happens.   You lose weight in a combination of fat and muscle mass.   The goal is to minimize muscle loss and maxamize fat loss. How you do that is matter of opinion.    Although it has been said that fast weight loss will result in a higher ratio of muscle loss. High cardio, low calorie, low protein, low weight resistence training will result in a higher muscle loss. The general current theory is to lose weight and retain a higher ratio of muscle mass then you should eat at a calorie deficit of about 500 cal deficit per day, (for women, approx 10x body weight, for men more like 11 or 12x body weight).   To get about 1g of protein per lb of body weight and to workout using resistence (weight) training at least 3 times a week for the full body.   Also include in 3 days of cardio at 1hr at a time. This seems to be the general consensus both in ASD and MFW groups. (backed up by medical journals, studies, etc that a few on MFW and here are good about reading and researching)

Response:

while dieting. The idea scares me. Thanks

The current thinking – inevitably, it happens.   You lose weight in a combination of fat and muscle mass.   The goal is to minimize muscle loss and maxamize fat loss. How you do that is matter of opinion.    Although it has been said that fast weight loss will result in a higher ratio of muscle loss. High cardio, low calorie, low protein, low weight resistence training will result in a higher muscle loss. The general current theory is to lose weight and retain a higher ratio of muscle mass then you should eat at a calorie deficit of about 500 cal deficit per day, (for women, approx 10x body weight, for men more like 11 or 12x body weight).   To get about 1g of protein per lb of body weight and to workout using resistence (weight) training at least 3 times a week for the full body.   Also include in 3 days of cardio at 1hr at a time. This seems to be the general consensus both in ASD and MFW groups.  (backed up by medical journals, studies, etc that a few on MFW and here are good about reading and researching)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do weightlifters use lots of carbs before workouts? Basicly, Its an energy thing.   If you eat some carbs (like sugary carbs) your body can produce immediate energy from the sugar in order to give you the energy for the workout.     Otherwise you risk "bonking" Is critin (sp) something anyone should consider when working out to lose weight and keep muscle? Creatine is what you are talking about.   Not necessarily advisible when trying to lose weight – especially if you are too focused on the number on the scale.   Creatine will cause your body to retain fluids as you are building muscle.   The thing with creatine is – most users find that once they stop, gains go away too. Any other drugs advisable? No.   Not really.   ECA stacks are used by some, but you should do some strong research and get a full medical checkup before going that route.   But basically you should be able to lose weight without assistence from drugs unless you have a medical condition (thyroid problems) that denotes drugs to help regulate your system. What do you guys think about fat blockers and carb blockers? Both are a bunch of crap and do nothing but make your wallet lighter. If you have money to blow on crap like that, then let me give you my address and you can send it to me.   I’ll gladly take $30 a month to encourage you to lose weight.  

Do you have a cite that shows these things are bogus? They sound so plausible. Don’t the blockers bind with the carbs like they say? If olestra works then why are these so improbable?

Response:

What do you guys think about fat blockers and carb blockers? Both are a bunch of crap and do nothing but make your wallet lighter.

Chitosan, as any fiber, will carry some fat with it through the body so it may be of some benefit in the context of a low calorie diet but if one is eating a standard American high calorie/high fat diet then it would be like trying to stop a freight train with a velvet rope. Carb blockers are usually an amylase inhibitor derived from beans but there is some doubt about whether it survives stomach acid but if it does, then it will only block calories from complex carbs (starches) not sugar or "high fructose corn syrup" that most of the junk we eat is loaded with. So even if it does work, like chitosan, it would only be useful if you are eating a low calorie diet anyway. — Ron Ritzman                   http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can figure out my email address

Response:

Commonsense ways to avoid muscle loss 1) don’t lose weight too quickly. Or ensure adequate protein intake. 2) Of course, exercise to build muscle and burn calories. Indeed. Why do weightlifters use lots of carbs before workouts?

I believe the saying goes, "Carbs before, protein after." —

Question:

Randall: Just curious – what is your height and what was your starting weight? We’re exactly the same weight now!

I’m 5′8 1/2 inches–and very thickly built with rather short legs

Response:

I had rather limited results with the induction phase of the Atkins diet. I lost about 10 lbs–and most of it stayed off, but I’ve had to resort to the "Fat Fast" to get continued weight loss. That has worked and I’ve ‘m down to 234 today, which is the lowest I’ve been in years. I’d appreciate hearing from other "metabolic resistent" folks. I’ve been alternating a week of fat-fast with a week of induction. Its tough, but I’ve been able to stick to it(which is more than I can say for other low-calorie diets I’ve tried).

Response:

Dear Randall, i am in almost the same situation as you.  i too lost about ten on induction and now am doing the fat fast 2-3 days per week in order to lose 1/2 to 2 1/2 pounds.  It is monotonous, but saves time for other things than cooking.  How have you survived?

Response:

Randall: Just curious – what is your height and what was your starting weight? We’re exactly the same weight now! I also lost 10 pound my first week on induction (Began June 24th) and promptly stalled.  I’ve basically stuck it out – because I enjoy the food anyway – and found that I’m still losing, although slowly.  I eat no more than 20 carbs per day, and am careful to avoid hidden carbs.  I’ll show no loss for 7 or 10 days, then drop a pound or so.  I’ve now lost a total of 23 pounds in 8 weeks, so I can’t complain.  I’ve tried a fat fast, but it’s just hard for me to do. I hear people say that although the scales may not go down, they lose sizes. I’m the opposite!  I’ve lost 23 pounds yet I’m wearing the same pants size as before! (Maybe not quite as snug though)  Where I see a noticable difference is when I look in the mirror – my face is much thinner than before!  Strange, huh?  My fat went from my *face* first! Good luck! Peter 257/234/184 6′2"

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I had rather limited results with the induction phase of the Atkins diet. I lost about 10 lbs–and most of it stayed off, but I’ve had to resort to the "Fat Fast" to get continued weight loss. That has worked and I’ve ‘m down to 234 today, which is the lowest I’ve been in years. I’d appreciate hearing from other "metabolic resistent" folks. I’ve been alternating a week of fat-fast with a week of induction. Its tough, but I’ve been able to stick to it(which is more than I can say for other low-calorie diets I’ve tried).

Response:

Would someone give me info about this….Renee 265/220/145

Response:

This is a link to the Atkins Center website, where they explain how the Fat Fast works. http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/21-237659.html Bob L.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Would someone give me info about this….Renee 265/220/145

Response:

 I’m doing the Atkins fat fast right now.  I’m on the third day and already have broken the stall and looking forward to several more days before going back to induction.   Love those eggs… Atkins Fat Fast http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/21-237659.html JimL – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hello, I am new to this group but I need to state that I weighed 167 when I started and now I am at 155 26 days later. I hope to be 130 by September. My question is what is the Fat Fast? I don’t believe I have heard of it. Thank You for your help. Blue

Response:

What is your daily menu like? What all are you eating? besides eggs. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m doing the Atkins fat fast right now.  I’m on the third day and already have broken the stall and looking forward to several more days before going back to induction.  Love those eggs… Atkins Fat Fast http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/12/21-237659.html JimL Hello, I am new to this group but I need to state that I weighed 167 when I started and now I am at 155 26 days later. I hope to be 130 by September. My question is what is the Fat Fast? I don’t believe I have heard of it. Thank You for your help. Blue

Response:

What is your daily menu like? What all are you eating? besides eggs.

  Boiled eggs and mayonaise and a little cream cheese.   5 times a day. Here is the list I have posted on the fridge. Step One: Eat Mostly Fat Begin with five 200-calorie feedings per day and follow for four or five days. Each item equals approximately 200 calories: one ounce of macadamia nuts or macadamia nut butter two ounces of cream cheese or Brie one ounce of tuna or chicken salad with two teaspoons of mayonnaise served in one-quarter of an avocado two deviled eggs made with two teaspoons of mayonnaise two ounces of sour cream and two tablespoons black or red caviar two and a half ounces whipped heavy cream topped with sucralose zero-calorie syrup two ounces of p

Question:

JimL writes: I’ve been on a low fat WOE for years and as soon as started Atkins, I more than doubled my calories per day and kept it up for 4 weeks until I started cutting back on the fat.  I continued to lose weight thruout that 4 weeks. Your measurements were inaccurate.

Your omniscience is inaccurate. Greg

Response:

Its as simplistic as "eat fat=get fat", and doesn;t reflect the fact that the human body isn;t as simple as a car or steam engine. As a matter of fact, the human body _is_ a car or steam engine, from the standpoint of energy conservation and thermodynamics.  This is why the only thing that matters in weight control is calories in vs. calories out.

That is complete nonsense when applied to a low-carb diet. When low-carbing a certain amount of fat is urinated out as ketones. Its absolutely not the case that all the energy ingested has to be expended in the manner that you suggest. As I said before you are over-simplifying the human body. You simplistic formula may be true of conventional diets but it isn’t true generally. And you are incorrect in saying that this has always been the case. It has always been the case, not only for human beings but for every other animal, plant, and machine in the universe.

In terms of thermodynamics, perhaps, but in terms of biology its rot. To dogmatically compare the human body to a simple machine is rediculous. Traditional dieting (pre-60’s) involved cutting bread and potatoes; ask anyone over the age of 70. Traditional, _successful_ dieting always involves creating a calorie deficit.  A deficit always produces weight loss.  If this criterion is satisfied, the diet will work, no matter what its other details, and no matter who is following the diet.

If that were true in the simple manner that you suggest then our 70 year olds would have cut the fat, which they did not. I agree that a low-carb diet may result in less calories, and that that will contribute towards weight loss, but to say that less calories is the whole picture, and not be open to any other possibilities, is to apply religious faith to a moving target. Greg

Response:

Obviously the same applies to all diets, once you go off. That is why losing weight is so hard for most people. MAF

Response:

JimL writes: Well, darrz, you are on notice that your theory may be wrong.

That would require invalidation of all evidence accumulated to date. I hope you have an open mind and will accept the results of the scientific studies underway as we speak.  

All scientific studies conducted to date have proven that weight loss is a matter of calories in vs. calories out. — Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Response:

Well, darrz, you are on notice that your theory may be wrong.  I hope you have an open mind and will accept the results of the scientific studies underway as we speak.   JimL

Prove it wrong, JimL. It will be a big advancement in science, if true! But let’s be clear, because science is nothing if it’s not clear, and specific in the facts, and completely repeatable in it’s experimental results. Perpetual motion and mumbo-jumbo stuff doesn’t cut the mustard. Proving that Atkins’ dieters lose more weight than low cal dieters DOES NOT mean that calories aren’t the basic unit of energy for the foods we eat, and thus the diets we go on. Good luck, but I wouldn’t hold your breath on this. darrz  

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When I am on Atkins for any period of time and return to a balanced diet with the same number of calories I tend to gain three or more pounds each and every time and cannot lose them unless I go back on Atkins. The modern definition of a balanced diet is more akin to a mathematical 3 way split between protein, carbs and fat. But does that really reflect the workings of the human body? Considering our hunter-gatherer heritage its unlikely that the "everything in moderation"  formula is as sensible as we are told it is. If sugar, carbs, margarine and light oils (ie. sunflower oil, corn oil etc) prove to be as poisonous as I reckon they are then "everything in moderation" will prove to be another bogus formula rather like the common sense "its all in the calories", which has been soundly disproven by the last year of low-carb research (for the same number of calories the low-carbers lost twice the weight in at least one study). Common-sense is a very dangerous thing, if you ask me. Truth is often counter-intuitive or paradoxical until, that is, the full facts are known. Greg Greg, I agree with you regarding relying on "common sense" as dogma, however, I can’t agree with you on the calories not being the lowest common denominator to all diets. Calories certainly ARE the common denominator of all diets. This has been proven time and time (and time!), again. Rest assured on this point. It’s important not to throw the baby out every time we find a new type of soap in the bath water. Even hunter-gatherers made a point of regularly collecting fruits high in sugar, even HONEY! Far from being disproved, the ability of the Atkins’ dieters to lose more weight than low calorie dieters shows that the Atkins’ group simply felt fuller, faster, and wound up eating less calories, in total. Also, eliminating carbs stimulates the body to release more water and glycogen, according to the researchers. Naturally, this water and glycogen is restored when the ultra low carb dieter begins eating carbs again. Eating a broad array of food, or not, is your choice. Learn the nutritive values, and eat what you think is best. A once or twice a week supplemental multi-vitamin and mineral pill might help balance out any nutritional shortages. darrz

 Well, darrz, you are on notice that your theory may be wrong.  I hope you have an open mind and will accept the results of the scientific studies underway as we speak.    JimL

Response:

JimL writes: I’ve been on a low fat WOE for years and as soon as started Atkins, I more than doubled my calories per day and kept it up for 4 weeks until I started cutting back on the fat.  I continued to lose weight thruout that 4 weeks.

Your measurements were inaccurate. — Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greg Lorriman writes: … rather like the common sense "its all in the calories", which has been soundly disproven by the last year of low-carb research (for the same number of calories the low-carbers lost twice the weight in at least one study). I’m afraid you’re mistaken.  It IS all in the calories, and it has always been that way.  For a given number of calories burned per day, a given number of calories consumed as food will produce the same change or stability in weight … no matter what form those calories take. Understanding this is an essential prerequisite to long-term weight loss. As mentioned this has been convincingly demonstrated as false. Its as simplistic as "eat fat=get fat", and doesn;t reflect the fact that the human body isn;t as simple as a car or steam engine. I believe you are correct.  I’ve been on a low fat WOE for years and as soon as started Atkins, I more than doubled my calories per day and kept it up for 4 weeks until I started cutting back on the fat.  I continued to lose weight thruout that 4 weeks. So those that say "It’s the calories." are full of it and ignoring the facts. Jim L

Using the most comprehensive testing (underwater weighing, exact measured portions of food, and totally wired up exercise), the EXACT understanding of calories as THE common denominator for ALL diets, has been proven. I can’t explain your results, but I believe you know it’s certainly not a totally controlled situation of exact calories in and calories out. If you want to say I’m "full of it", be my guest, of course. Those of us with a modicum of scientific understanding know just what that "it" is: truth. Your story is anecdotal, it has no quantifiable "facts", mentioned. darrz And you are incorrect in saying that this has always been the case. Traditional dieting (pre-60’s) involved cutting bread and potatoes; ask anyone over the age of 70. Greg

P.S. My Grandmother used to go on this diet. She knew that bread and potatoes were calories that were expendable, without hurting your nutritional balance of vitamins, minerals, or proteins.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When I am on Atkins for any period of time and return to a balanced diet with the same number of calories I tend to gain three or more pounds each and every time and cannot lose them unless I go back on Atkins. The modern definition of a balanced diet is more akin to a mathematical 3 way split between protein, carbs and fat. But does that really reflect the workings of the human body? Considering our hunter-gatherer heritage its unlikely that the "everything in moderation"  formula is as sensible as we are told it is. If sugar, carbs, margarine and light oils (ie. sunflower oil, corn oil etc) prove to be as poisonous as I reckon they are then "everything in moderation" will prove to be another bogus formula rather like the common sense "its all in the calories", which has been soundly disproven by the last year of low-carb research (for the same number of calories the low-carbers lost twice the weight in at least one study). Common-sense is a very dangerous thing, if you ask me. Truth is often counter-intuitive or paradoxical until, that is, the full facts are known. Greg

Greg, I agree with you regarding relying on "common sense" as dogma, however, I can’t agree with you on the calories not being the lowest common denominator to all diets. Calories certainly ARE the common denominator of all diets. This has been proven time and time (and time!), again. Rest assured on this point. It’s important not to throw the baby out every time we find a new type of soap in the bath water. Even hunter-gatherers made a point of regularly collecting fruits high in sugar, even HONEY! Far from being disproved, the ability of the Atkins’ dieters to lose more weight than low calorie dieters shows that the Atkins’ group simply felt fuller, faster, and wound up eating less calories, in total. Also, eliminating carbs stimulates the body to release more water and glycogen, according to the researchers. Naturally, this water and glycogen is restored when the ultra low carb dieter begins eating carbs again. Eating a broad array of food, or not, is your choice. Learn the nutritive values, and eat what you think is best. A once or twice a week supplemental multi-vitamin and mineral pill might help balance out any nutritional shortages. darrz

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greg Lorriman writes: … rather like the common sense "its all in the calories", which has been soundly disproven by the last year of low-carb research (for the same number of calories the low-carbers lost twice the weight in at least one study). I’m afraid you’re mistaken.  It IS all in the calories, and it has always been that way.  For a given number of calories burned per day, a given number of calories consumed as food will produce the same change or stability in weight … no matter what form those calories take. Understanding this is an essential prerequisite to long-term weight loss. As mentioned this has been convincingly demonstrated as false. Its as simplistic as "eat fat=get fat", and doesn;t reflect the fact that the human body isn;t as simple as a car or steam engine.

 I believe you are correct.  I’ve been on a low fat WOE for years and as soon as started Atkins, I more than doubled my calories per day and kept it up for 4 weeks until I started cutting back on the fat.  I continued to lose weight thruout that 4 weeks.  So those that say "It’s the calories." are full of it and ignoring the facts.  Jim L – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -And you are incorrect in saying that this has always been the case. Traditional dieting (pre-60’s) involved cutting bread and potatoes; ask anyone over the age of 70. Greg

Response:

Greg Lorriman writes: As mentioned this has been convincingly demonstrated as false.

As I’ve explained, it has been regularly proven as true, and unavoidable. Its as simplistic as "eat fat=get fat", and doesn;t reflect the fact that the human body isn;t as simple as a car or steam engine.

As a matter of fact, the human body _is_ a car or steam engine, from the standpoint of energy conservation and thermodynamics.  This is why the only thing that matters in weight control is calories in vs. calories out. And you are incorrect in saying that this has always been the case.

It has always been the case, not only for human beings but for every other animal, plant, and machine in the universe. Traditional dieting (pre-60’s) involved cutting bread and potatoes; ask anyone over the age of 70.

Traditional, _successful_ dieting always involves creating a calorie deficit.  A deficit always produces weight loss.  If this criterion is satisfied, the diet will work, no matter what its other details, and no matter who is following the diet. — Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Response:

If sugar, carbs, margarine and light oils (ie. sunflower oil, corn oil etc) prove to be as poisonous as I reckon they are then "everything in moderation" will prove to be another bogus formula rather like the common sense "its all in the calories", which has been soundly disproven by the last year of low-carb research (for the same number of calories the low-carbers lost twice the weight in at least one study).

In controlled studies, the amount of fat loss was exclusively determined by Calories. The amount of weight lost was always greater in low-carb, and if you feel it is more important to lose water then fat, then you have a point. Common-sense is a very dangerous thing, if you ask me. Truth is often counter-intuitive or paradoxical until, that is, the full facts are known. Greg

So is implying that it’s not how much you eat, it’s what you eat. Following study shows compositional losses, and according to the losses, you will note that fat loss in each group is pretty near the same. The one and only benefit of such a weight loss regimen (LC/keto) is hunger suppression. Mixed Starvation        277.9 x .595 = 165g fat loss/day Ketogenic Starvation  466.6 x .371 = 173g fat loss/day Composition of weight lost during short-term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and nonketogenic diets. Yang MU, Van Itallie TB. The effects of starvation, an 800-kcal mixed diet and an 800-kcal ketogenic (low carbohydrate-high fat) diet on the composition of weight lost were determined in each of six obese subjects during three 10-day periods.The energy-nitrogen balance method was used to quantify the three measurable components of weight loss; protein, fat, and water. On the 800-kcal ketogenic diet, subjects lost (mean +/- SE) 466.6 +/-51.3 g/day; on the isocaloric mixed diet, which provided carbohydrate and fat in conventional proportions, they lost 277.9+/- 32.1 g/day. Composition of weight lost (percentage) during the ketogenic diet was water 61.2, fat 35.0, protein 3.8. During the mixed diet, composition of loss was water 37.1, fat 59.5, protein 3.4… PMID: 956398 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Response:

Greg Lorriman writes: … rather like the common sense "its all in the calories", which has been soundly disproven by the last year of low-carb research (for the same number of calories the low-carbers lost twice the weight in at least one study). I’m afraid you’re mistaken.  It IS all in the calories, and it has always been that way.  For a given number of calories burned per day, a given number of calories consumed as food will produce the same change or stability in weight … no matter what form those calories take. Understanding this is an essential prerequisite to long-term weight loss.

As mentioned this has been convincingly demonstrated as false. Its as simplistic as "eat fat=get fat", and doesn;t reflect the fact that the human body isn;t as simple as a car or steam engine. And you are incorrect in saying that this has always been the case. Traditional dieting (pre-60’s) involved cutting bread and potatoes; ask anyone over the age of 70. Greg

Response:

Greg Lorriman writes: … rather like the common sense "its all in the calories", which has been soundly disproven by the last year of low-carb research (for the same number of calories the low-carbers lost twice the weight in at least one study).

I’m afraid you’re mistaken.  It IS all in the calories, and it has always been that way.  For a given number of calories burned per day, a given number of calories consumed as food will produce the same change or stability in weight … no matter what form those calories take. Understanding this is an essential prerequisite to long-term weight loss. — Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Response:

Wendy Marsden writes: Besides, I have a bunch of Jane Brody books and they are low-glycemic (before anyone mentioned that term) with balanced protein.  And they are delicious and easy to cook.

They must be very unusual books.  Most books are essentially 100% fiber, with no calories, very little protein, and a glycemic index of zero. They are also difficult to cook and bland to the taste. Maybe from restoring your glycogen reserves?

Most likely from eating too many calories. — Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Response:

When I am on Atkins for any period of time and return to a balanced diet with the same number of calories I tend to gain three or more pounds each and every time and cannot lose them unless I go back on Atkins.

The modern definition of a balanced diet is more akin to a mathematical 3 way split between protein, carbs and fat. But does that really reflect the workings of the human body? Considering our hunter-gatherer heritage its unlikely that the "everything in moderation"  formula is as sensible as we are told it is. If sugar, carbs, margarine and light oils (ie. sunflower oil, corn oil etc) prove to be as poisonous as I reckon they are then "everything in moderation" will prove to be another bogus formula rather like the common sense "its all in the calories", which has been soundly disproven by the last year of low-carb research (for the same number of calories the low-carbers lost twice the weight in at least one study). Common-sense is a very dangerous thing, if you ask me. Truth is often counter-intuitive or paradoxical until, that is, the full facts are known. Greg

Response:

Jane Brody’s a moron. Always has been. She’s another one of the "respected" nutritionists that have a half-dozen low-fat books to peddle.

She’s a professional nutritionist and wwriter.  She’s no moron.  She’s trying to piece together an emerging science into something that makes sense.  The field is rapidly changing, haven’t you noticed?! Besides, I have a bunch of Jane Brody books and they are low-glycemic (before anyone mentioned that term) with balanced protein.  And they are delicious and easy to cook. When I am on Atkins for any period of time and return to a balanced diet with the same number of calories I tend to gain three or more pounds each and every time and cannot lose them unless I go back on Atkins.

Maybe from restoring your glycogen reserves? Wendy

Response:

Pounds Lost on Atkins Diet May Quickly Return

Just like other diets. —

Question:

If I hadn’t lost nearly 30 pounds on the diet without ever feeling hungry, and if  I wasn’t aware of good studies which show that cholesterol and  triglycerides actually improve on Atkins, reading this article would make me hesitant to start Atkins.

Exactly why Taubes article was an important step in starting a real dialogue! Without it, how many would still be agreeing totally with the food pyramid mantra still being spouted and declared as the only true way to health. Taubes probably is guilty of ignoring some evidence which could argue against low-carbing, and he apparently has quoted some researchers out of context.

Even if quoted out of context, the information is correct. Why do these researchers feel they have to ‘qualify’ their results?  Taubes was merely applying their comments and studies to show that perhaps there IS more evidence to prove that Atkins was right.  He didn’t put the words in their mouths AND he didn’t say that these researchers agree with Atkins. He merely pointed out the science which just happens (surprise) to be in low carb favor!! Fumento seems to push the "calorie is a calorie" thesis, which I an dubious of.  At least one study has indicated that low-carb groups lose more weight than low-fat ones, even while consuming more calories.  And even if a calorie is a calorie, fat/protein calories seem to be more satiating than carbs.

I’ve never understood the complaint from anti-low carb researchers on this one. If indeed one’s satiety affects one’s calorie intake…WHY IS THIS A BAD THING? Fumento is on weak ground when he criticizes Taub’s interpretation of why Americans are getting fatter.  Supposedly fat intake has increased, but by looking at his statistics, not as much as carb intake has increased.  And maybe fat intake has increased because the spiking sugar levels have led to neverending cycles of hunger/gorging. Very true Fumento is right to criticize Taubes for dismissing other studies which show low-fat diets lead to weight loss.  However, the writer doesn’t fully acknowledge that most of these studies never really compared true very low-carb to low-fat.

I don’t think he dismisses it…I think he was keeping true to his point, which was that after new research on low carbing, perhaps Atkins WASN’T wrong!  No one says low fat doesn’t work on some people.  But the majority HAVE been saying that low carb IS bad…and as you know…it isn’t! Fumento has a point that people who have kept off 30 pounds or more for at least a year, who have registered in a database, are mostly low-fat dieters. Still, this is weak evidence.  And ignores the success stories of many low-carbers True Taubes said that the array of diet reseach out there can be used to support almost any nutritional viewpoint you care to choose, and this writer has used some of it to support his view.  It’s really impossible from reading his article (or Taubes) to know where the truth lies.  The only real way to do this is to review the articles for oneself, which is a *lot* of work!

True…it would be easier just to try it for yourself…which you have with great success.  Wouldn’t it have been a shame had you seen this article and had it affect your decision before giving the program a chance? Jan

Response:

please post a link next time you are so moved by rhetorical persuassion – then we all get a choice. You had a choice anyway. Once you saw what the article was about, you were perfectly free to ignore it and move on.

They’re all happy to see any article on Atkins, AS LONG AS it says keep on scarfing down the bacon, cheese and pork rinds and some day that extra 100lbs will magically melt away…Anything that might suggest they really need to eat healthier they aren’t the least bit interested…in fact seem quite afraid of seeing…

Response:

Fumento seems to push the "calorie is a calorie" thesis, which I an dubious of.  At least one study has indicated that low-carb groups lose more weight than low-fat ones, even while consuming more calories.  And even if a calorie is a calorie, fat/protein calories seem to be more satiating than carbs.

There are few things that annoy me more than when someone misses the point entirely by offering a well-nigh tautological statement like "calories in, calories out" as a refutation of the benefits of low-carbohydrate diets. Fumento is on weak ground when he criticizes Taub’s interpretation of why Americans are getting fatter.  Supposedly fat intake has increased, but by looking at his statistics, not as much as carb intake has increased.  And maybe fat intake has increased because the spiking sugar levels have led to neverending cycles of hunger/gorging.

I think that his claim that fat consumption has risen may be questionable. I may be wrong, but I believe that those data are based on disappearance, not actual consumption. That is, if you trim your steak or leave some salad dressing in the bottom of your bowl, that fat is still counted. Again, I may be wrong about that. There’s also the issue of fat quality, to which I think Atkins ought to devote more of his book. While fat consumption may have risen slightly over the past century, the consumption of healthful fats like lard, tallow, butter, and tropical oils has fallen precipitously in favor of margarine, vegetable shortening, and grain oils. Perhaps the only healthful oil whose consumption has risen is olive oil, and the cheap brands are often of questionable quality. Fumento is right to criticize Taubes for dismissing other studies which show low-fat diets lead to weight loss.  However, the writer doesn’t fully acknowledge that most of these studies never really compared true very low-carb to low-fat.

Certainly one can achieve and maintain weight loss with any diet sufficiently low in calories, but a low-fat diet is an unhealthful and unsatisfying way of doing so, particularly over the long term. Fumento has a point that people who have kept off 30 pounds or more for at least a year, who have registered in a database, are mostly low-fat dieters. Still, this is weak evidence.  And ignores the success stories of many low-carbers.

Most dieters are low-fat dieters. The Mexico natives example was interesting, although there are numerous counterexamples (e.g. the Inuit for one).

There are a few reasons for the differences between Mexican and Arizonan Pima Indians. The most obvious is the fact that exercise mitigates some of the effects of excess carbohydrate consumption. The other is the fact that quality is more important than the ratios of macronutrients consumed. Meat, cheese, and salad may be better than beans and rice, but beans and rice are better than white frybread cooked in soybean shortening. Also, if I’m not mistaken, lard is, or was until recently, the predominant cooking oil in Mexico.

Response:

Epsilon Erandi to transmit: I have to admit that this writer’s criticisms of the Atkins diet are persuasive.  As was Taubes article.  If I hadn’t lost nearly 30 pounds on the diet without ever feeling hungry, and if  I wasn’t aware of good studies which show that cholesterol and  triglycerides actually improve on Atkins, reading this article would make me hesitant to start Atkins.

Yes, sad that. Taubes probably is guilty of ignoring some evidence which could argue against low-carbing, and he apparently has quoted some researchers out of context.

As another poster here noted, if that were actually true, 60 minutes would be all over that, considering the splash Taubes’ article made last summer.  What we actually see is *one* researcher who complained that the quote was not complete, rather than inaccurate, because he didn’t want to be seen to be advocating *saturated* fat, even by the thinnest of connections (and we have conformation of that thru his own article), which I personally never felt he was when I read the Taubes article.  His knee jerk panic attack though has created some strong opinion where there wasn’t before.  This, and the insinuating accusations from The Committee for Responsible Medicine are the *only* sources.  And I take TCfRM’s words with a whole lake of salt. Fumento seems to push the "calorie is a calorie" thesis, which I an dubious of.  At least one study has indicated that low-carb groups lose more weight than low-fat ones, even while consuming more calories.  And even if a calorie is a calorie, fat/protein calories seem to be more satiating than carbs.

I don’t understand the mentality that says using the body’s own natural strengths to control hunger is somehow worse than surgery, or deprivation.  And it makes me embarrassed for the state of our education when someone claims we’ve evolved to eat grains.   Fumento is on weak ground when he criticizes Taub’s interpretation of why Americans are getting fatter.  Supposedly fat intake has increased, but by looking at his statistics, not as much as carb intake has increased.  And maybe fat intake has increased because the spiking sugar levels have led to neverending cycles of hunger/gorging.

Lots of detractors scream "portion control" (as if it is the entire answer).  Well duh.  Taubes addresses *why* we’ve increased our portions so dramatically over the last thirty years, and points out that lowcarb helps most dieters regain portion control naturally.   Fumento is right to criticize Taubes for dismissing other studies which show low-fat diets lead to weight loss.  However, the writer doesn’t fully acknowledge that most of these studies never really compared true very low-carb to low-fat.

Taubes threw the number one half-truth about lowcarbing back in the low fat crowd’s faces about their own pet diet– namely low fat doesn’t work, because you can’t stay on it for life (cuz it so restrictive and boring), and if you go off it, you gain weight again.   And he backed it up with actual statistics. Tit for tat.  Horrid sin that, holding a mirror up to your critics face. Fumento has a point that people who have kept off 30 pounds or more for at least a year, who have registered in a database, are mostly low-fat dieters. Still, this is weak evidence.  And ignores the success stories of many low-carbers.

Very weak.  Registries are generally skewed to favor low fat dieters.   Low carbers can’t answer some questions correctly in the National Weight Loss Registry, for instance.  Anyone remember the one specifically targeted for low carbers back in June/August that was revealed to be a data miner for possible actionable charges against doctors who "abused" their patients by letting them lowcarb?   Sponsored by the Committee for Responsible Medicine, I think. Taubes said that the array of diet reseach out there can be used to support almost any nutritional viewpoint you care to choose, and this writer has used some of it to support his view.  It’s really impossible from reading his article (or Taubes) to know where the truth lies.  The only real way to do this is to review the articles for oneself, which is a *lot* of work!

So?  The current low fat over simplification about saturated fat (its too hard to educate the public to just cut saturated fat so we’ll tell them to cut all of it— or so they say *now*) is better maybe?   The Mexico natives example was interesting, although there are numerous counterexamples (e.g. the Inuit for one).

Well the corn societies started in that geographical area (including points further south), so of all the Native American peoples the Aztec/Incan/Mayan grouping will have adapted the most, which in my personal opinion isn’t much (its been barely 2000 years since corn became a regular part of the diet there).   It makes a difference whether the study worked with a traditional diet (much higher in fiber, with all the benefits to controlling insulin that implies) or the newer more modern diet with more refined corn flour, and plenty of sugars. Anyway, I’m glad this article was posted.  It does point out many weaknesses in Taubes article, although this does not mean the diet is not a good one, which on balance I’m convinced it is.  I’d love to see Taubes or someone else do a thorough response to this article.

Yes, I would too. — revek A rant a day keeps the white coats away.  KellyAnn

Response:

I have to admit that this writer’s criticisms of the Atkins diet are persuasive.  As was Taubes article.  If I hadn’t lost nearly 30 pounds on the diet without ever feeling hungry, and if  I wasn’t aware of good studies which show that cholesterol and  triglycerides actually improve on Atkins, reading this article would make me hesitant to start Atkins. Taubes probably is guilty of ignoring some evidence which could argue against low-carbing, and he apparently has quoted some researchers out of context. Fumento seems to push the "calorie is a calorie" thesis, which I an dubious of.  At least one study has indicated that low-carb groups lose more weight than low-fat ones, even while consuming more calories.  And even if a calorie is a calorie, fat/protein calories seem to be more satiating than carbs. Fumento is on weak ground when he criticizes Taub’s interpretation of why Americans are getting fatter.  Supposedly fat intake has increased, but by looking at his statistics, not as much as carb intake has increased.  And maybe fat intake has increased because the spiking sugar levels have led to neverending cycles of hunger/gorging. Fumento is right to criticize Taubes for dismissing other studies which show low-fat diets lead to weight loss.  However, the writer doesn’t fully acknowledge that most of these studies never really compared true very low-carb to low-fat. Fumento has a point that people who have kept off 30 pounds or more for at least a year, who have registered in a database, are mostly low-fat dieters. Still, this is weak evidence.  And ignores the success stories of many low-carbers. Taubes said that the array of diet reseach out there can be used to support almost any nutritional viewpoint you care to choose, and this writer has used some of it to support his view.  It’s really impossible from reading his article (or Taubes) to know where the truth lies.  The only real way to do this is to review the articles for oneself, which is a *lot* of work! The Mexico natives example was interesting, although there are numerous counterexamples (e.g. the Inuit for one). Anyway, I’m glad this article was posted.  It does point out many weaknesses in Taubes article, although this does not mean the diet is not a good one, which on balance I’m convinced it is.  I’d love to see Taubes or someone else do a thorough response to this article. -Kevin

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … Hill’s co-researcher, Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania, says "the probable explanation for the greater weight loss in the groups on the Atkins regimen" is that it "gives people a framework to eat fewer calories, since most of the choices in this culture are carbohydrate driven….You’re left eating a lot of fat, and you get tired of that. Over time people eat fewer calories." Well, duh, isn’t that what someone who wants to lose weight would want? Yes–people need to eat fewer calories to lose weight; however, the hypothesis that this is due to getting "tired" of fat is laughable.  The reason people eat fewer calories when they consume fat is that 1) fat makes you feel satisfied faster, and 2) it keeps you feeling satisfied longer. -Jon

And it doesn’t spike blood sugar levels.

Response:

… Hill’s co-researcher, Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania, says "the probable explanation for the greater weight loss in the groups on the Atkins regimen" is that it "gives people a framework to eat fewer calories, since most of the choices in this culture are carbohydrate driven….You’re left eating a lot of fat, and you get tired of that. Over time people eat fewer calories." Well, duh, isn’t that what someone who wants to lose weight would want?

Yes–people need to eat fewer calories to lose weight; however, the hypothesis that this is due to getting "tired" of fat is laughable.  The reason people eat fewer calories when they consume fat is that 1) fat makes you feel satisfied faster, and 2) it keeps you feeling satisfied longer. -Jon

Response:

Epsilon Erandi to transmit: Damn you people are hillarious!  Eat up any piece of drivel no ,matter how ludicruos that supports the "guru", yet dismiss any and all refutations no matter how well refrenced.  Nor credible? LMAO, but Taubes is?  How hard do you think it would be to contact the experts Taubes claimed "support" atkins, and see which article reflects their real opinions?

This from the fellow who thinks magazine articles are definitive medical science.  That opinions trump actual said science.  Oooh yeah I’m so impressed with your logic.  Not. — revek I knew that there had to be aliens somewhere in the universe.  What I did not know until now was that they read USENET.–Mark Hughes

Response:

please post a link next time you are so moved by rhetorical persuassion – then we all get a choice.

You had a choice anyway. Once you saw what the article was about, you were perfectly free to ignore it and move on.

Response:

… Hill’s co-researcher, Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania, says "the probable explanation for the greater weight loss in the groups on the Atkins regimen" is that it "gives people a framework to eat fewer calories, since most of the choices in this culture are carbohydrate driven….You’re left eating a lot of fat, and you get tired of that. Over time people eat fewer calories."

Well, duh, isn’t that what someone who wants to lose weight would want?

Response:

Damn you people are hillarious!  Eat up any piece of drivel no ,matter how ludicruos that supports the "guru", yet dismiss any and all refutations no matter how well refrenced.  Nor credible? LMAO, but Taubes is?  How hard do you think it would be to contact the experts Taubes claimed "support" atkins, and see which article reflects their real opinions? "There are none so blind as those who will not see" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Have you looked at his home page?  I don’t think he has much credibility. Also, I don’t think the scientists he says he interviewed would make statements with crude remarks in them, knowing that they would be published. He looks to be primarily an ultra-conservative political writer.  At least it is coming from both extremes of the spectrum.  There was an article from those connected to the Center for Science in the Public Interest which is a left wing vegetarian group which also attacked the Taubes article, claiming it had interviewed scientists who said they were misquoted. I have yet to see an interview with any of the scientists quoted in Taubes that were conducted by the mainstream press indicating that they were as outraged as Fumento quotes them to be.  Many of them had objections that their complete agendas were not included in his article, e.g. Willett said Taubes should have said he, Willett, was against saturated fat.  If they were indeed as outraged as Fumento says they were, we would have heard about it from CNN to NBC to 20/20 to 60 Minutes, etc.  That has not been the case. Lana Please don’t shoot the messenger! Personally, I am not anti-Atkins or even anti-low carb (I’ve been doing low-carb for about a month now and I’m liking it). But I had just finished reading this guy’s book, "The Fat of the Land" (which is very good), and did a web search on him. This is an article he recently wrote. Fumento is highly critical of all ‘quack’ diets because they promote yo-yo dieting and negatives feelings in the dieter, thereby perpetuating the vicious diet cycle and keeping diet gurus in business (I can agree with this). But I think most doctors are corporate-sponsored, meaning that their interest in the public’s health is dubious, so their four decades’ worth of high-carb health pyramids hasn’t exactly been helping us as a nation, has it? I’m posting this because I thought the Atkins fans here would be interested in reading anything Atkins-related, be it negative or positive. —– http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml March 2003 Big Fat Fake The Atkins diet controversy and the sorry state of science journalism. By Michael Fumento It was exactly what millions of obese Americans wanted to hear: Diet guru Robert Atkins has been right all along; conversely, the "medical establishment" that has routinely criticized him has been entirely wrong. Unlimited-calorie, high-fat meals are the key to low-fat bodies. So claimed award-winning science writer Gary Taubes in an 8,000-word New York Times Magazine blockbuster that appeared last July, "What If It

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If I cut down on carbohydrates I find myself consuming a diet conisting of about 30% carbohydrate 30% protein and 30% fat(mostly saturated.  Is there anything wrong with the high protein high saturated fat aspect of this diet? that only adds up to 90%    :)) i suggest that you read all 11 of the articles on fat at: www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html start with the one titled something like "the oiling of America" that will help to make sense of stupidity in America on fat my own view is that you would do best to avoid trans fats at all costs.  that means NO margarines of any kind and avoid junk foods in general coz they tend to have high trans fat content and NO french fries at any of the fast food places, again coz they tend to have high trans fat content the Golden Arches  (aka MacDonalds) used to have good french fries (with low trans fat content) 12+ years ago when they used saturated beef fat to do the fries then they screwed up big time and went to a vegtable oil with high trans fat content this past year,they sidesteped to "better" vegtablel oil which has slightly less trans fats which gets an "F" report card from me on improvements bill t1 since ‘57

This is the reason I have been consuming mostly saturated fats-I avoid trans fatty acids at ALL costs! They cause me to break out badly. Thanks for your post.

Response:

If I cut down on carbohydrates I find myself consuming a diet conisting of about 30% carbohydrate 30% protein and 30% fat(mostly saturated.  Is there anything wrong with the high protein high saturated fat aspect of this diet?

You’ll die of heart disease rather than diabetes complications !!!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tess if you are so thin why are you on such an eating regime? It is most likely you will lose weight on it. If carbs are your problem because of diabetes I might suggest you look at GI factors for all you eat instead of just carbs. You can eat more complex carbs without BSI bounce. Your lipids are high but you make no mention of HDL which is very important and the ratio between ldl and hdl is very important. The other thing you could do is to try and consume "better" fats as provided in salmon and the like. High protein liquid fad diets in the past have been associated with bad nutrition because of lack of vitamins and nutrients , Are you taking the full range of suppliments for someone on a low carb diet, such as b group vitamins Vit C and E and folate, calcium. It seems to me a lot of people follow a low carb regime but forget to take adequate suppliments to replace those that they have taken out of the diet – example vitamin C from fruit. Some folk claim kidney damage from high protein , it is unproven but it does give a few people gout and recurrent acid based kidney stones. These can be blocked. If I cut down on carbohydrates I find myself consuming a diet conisting of about 30% carbohydrate 30% protein and 30% fat(mostly saturated.  Is there anything wrong with the high protein high saturated fat aspect of this diet?

I seem to have problems (skin and hypoglycemia) with most refined carbs, wheat and oat. The GI factors do not seem to help in my situation.  So for the most part the only carbs I can eat safely have been vegetables and fruits.  I dont like many fruits and vegetables (although I am trying to consume more and more) so its been easier to get my calories from fat. Plus I have been trying to gain weight and I thought fat would work faster. I am taking plenty of supplements including all of the ones you mentioned. I also eat plenty of salmon. I dont get any protein from liquid supplements. My HDL is 61.

Response:

If I cut down on carbohydrates I find myself consuming a diet conisting of about 30% carbohydrate 30% protein and 30% fat(mostly saturated.  Is there anything wrong with the high protein high saturated fat aspect of this diet?

that only adds up to 90%    :)) i suggest that you read all 11 of the articles on fat at: www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html start with the one titled something like "the oiling of America" that will help to make sense of stupidity in America on fat my own view is that you would do best to avoid trans fats at all costs.  that means NO margarines of any kind and avoid junk foods in general coz they tend to have high trans fat content and NO french fries at any of the fast food places, again coz they tend to have high trans fat content the Golden Arches  (aka MacDonalds) used to have good french fries (with low trans fat content) 12+ years ago when they used saturated beef fat to do the fries then they screwed up big time and went to a vegtable oil with high trans fat content this past year,they sidesteped to "better" vegtablel oil which has slightly less trans fats which gets an "F" report card from me on improvements bill t1 since ‘57

Response:

Tess if you are so thin why are you on such an eating regime? It is most likely you will lose weight on it. If carbs are your problem because of diabetes I might suggest you look at GI factors for all you eat instead of just carbs. You can eat more complex carbs without BSI bounce. Your lipids are high but you make no mention of HDL which is very important and the ratio between ldl and hdl is very important. The other thing you could do is to try and consume "better" fats as provided in salmon and the like. High protein liquid fad diets in the past have been associated with bad nutrition because of lack of vitamins and nutrients , Are you taking the full range of suppliments for someone on a low carb diet, such as b group vitamins Vit C and E and folate, calcium. It seems to me a lot of people follow a low carb regime but forget to take adequate suppliments to replace those that they have taken out of the diet – example vitamin C from fruit. Some folk claim kidney damage from high protein , it is unproven but it does give a few people gout and recurrent acid based kidney stones. These can be blocked.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If I cut down on carbohydrates I find myself consuming a diet conisting of about 30% carbohydrate 30% protein and 30% fat(mostly saturated.  Is there anything wrong with the high protein high saturated fat aspect of this diet?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If I cut down on carbohydrates I find myself consuming a diet conisting of about 30% carbohydrate 30% protein and 30% fat(mostly saturated.  Is there anything wrong with the high protein high saturated fat aspect of this diet? The amount of protein is unlikely to be a problem if you don’t have kidney disease.  Unless the diet is very low-calorie, the amount of saturated fat could adversely affect your blood lipids (current recommendations are that at most 10% of your total calories should come from saturated fat; however, on a very low-calorie diet the amount of saturated fat that would provide 30% of the calories could be less than the amount that would provide 10% of the calories on a eucaloric diet). I am assuming that those percentages you’re talking about are percentages of total calories, not percentages of food weight; the latter would be very hard to work with, even taking into account that fat has twice as many calories per gram as carbohydrate or protein, because of the varying water and fiber content of foods.  That also brings up the question of what mystery macronutrient accounts for the remaining 10%; it isn’t alcohol, is it?

I must have been tired when I posed this question, everything is wrong. I am low carbing and thus my diet has been about:  30% carb  25% protein    45% fat (mostly saturated)   So I am consuming about half my daily calories as mostly saturated fat. I low carb to control hypoglycemia and skin problems. I think that being on this type of diet for over two years has caused my problems with glucose tolerance-is it possible that a diet such as this would cause glucose intolerance? (I have not been diagnosed as Diabetic yet-still awaiting my second visit after initial blood work) My cholesterol, LDL, and triglycerides are all borderline high. I also consume alot of eggs -about 21 a week. I know this diet is all wrong for me because I do not feel totally great on it, but now as I am trying to increase carb intake I am noticing they cause prolonged higher blood glucose readings-not extremely high but just not getting back down right away-staying in the 100-90 range for hours. My fasting glucose has also gone up from mid 60’s to mid/high 70’s.  My Dr. suspects diabetes but I am begining to think my diet has caused insulin resistance. I am very thin by the way because although I consume high fat my diet is also low calorie-not by choice though, its just hard to eat so much protein and fat. Does a high fat meal cause resistance just at the meal where the fat is consumed, or does the resistance carry over into the day? I have read that consuming a high protein, high fat diet before taking an OGTT can cause "normal" people to fail the test-is this true? If I switch to moderately high carb will it reduce the glucose intolerance? Thank you!

Response:

If I cut down on carbohydrates I find myself consuming a diet conisting of about 30% carbohydrate 30% protein and 30% fat(mostly saturated.  Is there anything wrong with the high protein high saturated fat aspect of this diet?

That depends on who you ask.  Why is your diet so high in saturated fat? And what is the other 10% of what you are eating? — Type 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/ Julie Bove, posting from new account

Response:

If I cut down on carbohydrates I find myself consuming a diet conisting of about 30% carbohydrate 30% protein and 30% fat(mostly saturated.  Is there anything wrong with the high protein high saturated fat aspect of this diet?

The amount of protein is unlikely to be a problem if you don’t have kidney disease.  Unless the diet is very low-calorie, the amount of saturated fat could adversely affect your blood lipids (current recommendations are that at most 10% of your total calories should come from saturated fat; however, on a very low-calorie diet the amount of saturated fat that would provide 30% of the calories could be less than the amount that would provide 10% of the calories on a eucaloric diet). I am assuming that those percentages you’re talking about are percentages of total calories, not percentages of food weight; the latter would be very hard to work with, even taking into account that fat has twice as many calories per gram as carbohydrate or protein, because of the varying water and fiber content of foods.  That also brings up the question of what mystery macronutrient accounts for the remaining 10%; it isn’t alcohol, is it?

Response:

If I cut down on carbohydrates I find myself consuming a diet conisting of about 30% carbohydrate 30% protein and 30% fat(mostly saturated.  Is there anything wrong with the high protein high saturated fat aspect of this diet?

Response:

Question:

|I read this one after they had Taubes interviewed on NPR this morning. | |Taubes was quite a bit more restrained on the radio. He said that the high |fat high protein proponents are in the minority, but were an established |minority. | |Once again, his article relieves us of any personal responsibility for our |obesity. It’s not our fault, it’s the fault of the doctors and the FDA, and |the government !   Taubes is going to delude America that it is OK to |overeat, and if you do get fat, well it must be somebody else’s fault. This is my take as well.  It makes for popular reading and the low-carb fanatics claim him now as God Taubes.  The truth is exactly as you say, Doc, he is selling the same thing most diet books either state or imply.  It’s not your fault.  You were lied to. Damn, people flat eat too much……PERIOD. |This will certainly be disappointing to the personal injury lawyers, who are |gearing up for an assault on the food industry similar to what happened to |the tobacco industry.  But wait !  Maybe they can prove it was a conspiracy |between the government, and the food industry. Eureka ! The food industry has its own separate conspiracy.  Maybe that will be enough for trial. |I don’t quite agree with the proposition that this is some sort of |"establishment vs. Adkins" scenario, although it does make a good read. |Clancy is better if you want a good read though. It’s not even close to an Atkins vs anybody read and yes, Clancy is more fun. |And Taubes completely glosses over the accepted estimate that people are |eating 400 calories more per day than they need. He provides no evidence at |all that a high protein, high fat diet fixes this. That’s a nice figure but it must be an average since the grossly, morbidly and clinically obese eat one whole hell of a lot more than that. If you are saying that we eat 400 calls more than we THINK we need to be healthy, I would agree and up you a few hundred cals. |He quotes on of my former attendings in Boston, George Blackburn, in support |of the high protein diet.  What Taubes didn’t report was the miserable experience Dr. Blackburn had |with long term results. Sure, we could get people to lose weight, but almost |none of them were able to maintain the weight loss at one year. No surprises here.  Fits Atkins, Jenny Craig, WW, etc in "success" for life. |Furthermore, Taubes ignores that Dr. Blackburn’s successful diet was very |low calorie. It was around 800 – 1000 calories for most people. At those |calorie levels, you will lose weight, regardless of the constituents. They |were high protein because they excluded almost every other source of |calories, and were designed to reduce the amount of muscle loss normally |experienced with weight loss. Blackburn demonstrated that the PSMF was safe |and at least in the short term, effective. In the long run, it was |ineffective. Opti-fast’s version of an induction scheme. |The Adkins diet is nothing like this. It doesn’t restrict the calories as |much, and includes plenty of fat, whereas the Blackburn PSMF has almost zero |fat. True, but it lies open your CVS to the ravages of a high sat fat diet. |The central argument is "Why do people eat too much ?" | |Is it because they eat too many carbs ?  Or too much fat ? | |I’m not sure why we are arguing.   We eat too much of both. We are indeed in |a "toxic food environment" . | |William C Biggs, MD Thanks, Doc.

Response:

That’s a nice figure but it must be an average since the grossly, morbidly and clinically obese eat one whole hell of a lot more than that.

Anyone eating 400 kcal a day more than he needs to will gain about a pound every nine days, or 42 lbs a year.  Such a person would weigh 600 lbs or so after ten years of eating in this way.  Since 600-pound Americans are rare, I’d say that very few people are eating more than 400 kcal in excess of their requirements per day, even in the U.S.

Response:

Maniac, You would be right, IF calorie expenditure stayed the same. But it doesn’t. The reason why the weight levels off is that there is some "overhead" energy cost in maintaining that additional body size. It requires maintenance with blood, calories, protein, oxygen supply, etc. Plus that extra weight has to be carried around where ever you go. Try strapping a 60 pound backpack on, 24 x 7, and tell me whether or not your calorie expenditure goes up. As weight increases, eventually an equilibrium is reached where the amount of energy required to maintain the weight matches what is actually being eaten. One exception would be a person with DM who is spilling glucose into the urine.  They can lose several hundred calories that way if badly controlled. When we bring the sugar down, and eliminate urinary loss of glucose, guess what happens.   Yep, the weight goes up. Cheers, William C Biggs, MD

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s a nice figure but it must be an average since the grossly, morbidly and clinically obese eat one whole hell of a lot more than that. Anyone eating 400 kcal a day more than he needs to will gain about a pound every nine days, or 42 lbs a year.  Such a person would weigh 600 lbs or so after ten years of eating in this way.  Since 600-pound Americans are rare, I’d say that very few people are eating more than 400 kcal in excess of their requirements per day, even in the U.S.

Response:

That’s a nice figure but it must be an average since the grossly, morbidly and clinically obese eat one whole hell of a lot more than that. Anyone eating 400 kcal a day more than he needs to will gain about a pound every nine days, or 42 lbs a year.  Such a person would weigh 600 lbs or so after ten years of eating in this way.  Since 600-pound Americans are rare, I’d say that very few people are eating more than 400 kcal in excess of their requirements per day, even in the U.S.

You top out eventually, if your food intake remains constant. Say a 100 kilo person (220 lbs.), eating 2000 calories to maintain weight, jumps up to 2400 calories. Guesstimate their final weight as (2400/2000 * 100 kilos) 120 kilos. That’s another 44 lbs, an uncomfortable but not ridiculous amount of spare weight.

Response:

|Anyone eating 400 kcal a day more than he needs to will gain about a pound |every nine days, or 42 lbs a year.  Such a person would weigh 600 lbs or so |after ten years of eating in this way.  Since 600-pound Americans are rare, |I’d say that very few people are eating more than 400 kcal in excess of |their requirements per day, even in the U.S. Only accurate in a less than real life setting.  Calories burned do not stay constant.

Response:

Also, what do most people do when they gain weight? Go on a diet, even if it only lasts a week, there is some control over spiralling weight for most people.

You’re right!  I can’t tell you how many people I know who have done just that.  While dieting, they would drool over the foods they were going to eat just as soon as their diet had ended.  And then they regained the weight. — Type 2 http://www.redshift.com/~juliebove/

Response:

You top out eventually, if your food intake remains constant. Say a 100 kilo person (220 lbs.), eating 2000 calories to maintain weight, jumps up to 2400 calories. Guesstimate their final weight as (2400/2000 * 100 kilos) 120 kilos. That’s another 44 lbs, an uncomfortable but not ridiculous amount of spare weight.

Also, what do most people do when they gain weight? Go on a diet, even if it only lasts a week, there is some control over spiralling weight for most people.

Response:

|Anyone eating 400 kcal a day more than he needs to will gain about a pound |every nine days, or 42 lbs a year.  Such a person would weigh 600 lbs or so |after ten years of eating in this way.  Since 600-pound Americans are rare, |I’d say that very few people are eating more than 400 kcal in excess of |their requirements per day, even in the U.S. Only accurate in a less than real life setting.  Calories burned do not stay constant.

Nor do calories consumed. You may eat 400 calories above maintenance one day and 400 below the next. So called "naturally thin" people don’t do it by eating exactly at maintenance every day. It’s just that everything comes out even over time and this is the real difference between thin people and fat people. (assuming that they don’t make any attempt to consciously count calories) Of course this does not absolve an obese person of responsibility for his own condition as nobody goes to bed skinny and wakes up fat. — Ron Ritzman              |[losing fat] is like running a government                          |You have to take out more then you put in                          |– Smokey

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – |Nor do calories consumed. You may eat 400 calories above maintenance one |day and 400 below the next. So called "naturally thin" people don’t do it |by eating exactly at maintenance every day. It’s just that everything comes |out even over time and this is the real difference between thin people and |fat people. (assuming that they don’t make any attempt to consciously count |calories) Working on averages, perhaps over a month or three, makes the most sense.  Not many thin people averaging 5000 cal per day for 3 months. |Of course this does not absolve an obese person of responsibility for his |own condition as nobody goes to bed skinny and wakes up fat. None.

Yeah but some go to bed skinny and wake up pregnant.

Response:

|Nor do calories consumed. You may eat 400 calories above maintenance one |day and 400 below the next. So called "naturally thin" people don’t do it |by eating exactly at maintenance every day. It’s just that everything comes |out even over time and this is the real difference between thin people and |fat people. (assuming that they don’t make any attempt to consciously count |calories) Working on averages, perhaps over a month or three, makes the most sense.  Not many thin people averaging 5000 cal per day for 3 months. |Of course this does not absolve an obese person of responsibility for his |own condition as nobody goes to bed skinny and wakes up fat. None.

Response:

Question:

So does being overweight actually cause insulin resistance or simply aggrivate it?

Insulin resistance has several causes.  The genetics of Type II diabetes suggest that there may be two or three genes for insulin resistance, as well as other rarer causes (see the first two examples below). There’s a mitochondrial defect that causes Type II diabetes via maternal inheritance. That cause is believed to be rare, and I don’t know if diet or exercise will do anything to prevent insulin resistance and diabetes in those folks. There are some people who are skinny runners and become Type II diabetic. I have not seen reports on how these people respond to insulin – it’s possible that their form of Type II is caused by something else. Strangely enough, insulin resistance and diabetes are strongly associated with ancestral populations that had high rates of aerobic activity in daily life. Parrots in domesticated environments develop a form of diabetes that appears to be glucagon hypersensitivity (effectively the same as insulin resistance). Interestingly, the two causes of diabetes in birds are thought to be diets rich in fats and lack of aerobic exercise. Parakeets are especially prone to this, and parakeets are aerobic marvels. Parakeets normally have a diet higher in fat, but an all-seed diet is a bit much, even for them. Insulin resistance is thought to be caused by one of several hormones produced by fat cells, or by a lack of a hormone produced by fat cells. In college, I weighed 115 lbs. at 5′9". Through my adult life, there has been a modest gain, up to (what at the time was, I thought a horrid weight of 140 lbs). When I stopped running, my weight ballooned up to 220 lbs, and I became diabetic. If I were to take a guess, I would say that insulin resistance is the cause of obesity in some people, and in some people obesity causes insulin resistance. It’s the only way to explain all the data we have at hand. Most childhood Type II diabetes is the result of large quantities of high-fat foods and lack of exercise. The rate at which T2 diabetes is increasing in the adult population also indicates that there is something wrong, not only genetically, but sociologically. There is the possibility that the genes for insulin resistance are common, and might not even constitute a genetic "defect." They might simply be a necessary adaptation which, in a different environment, has a nasty side-effect. It’s also possible that the genes are designed to kill off those taking too great a fraction of the available food or  non-productive members of the community, back when we were hunter-gatherers. I personally prefer the theory that the genes are runner’s genes, and that my diabetes is because I’m a runner at heart and in my genes. Ok, so maybe that’s a psychological trick to get me through the day. Rob

Response:

By the way, another thing which could help is the change the way PE is taught. I HATED PE as a kid/teen. It was all about jocks and indoor sports and calisthenics. I think if we did fun things like rock climbing or rowing (lots of water where I live) or other fun outdoor activities, I might have been more interested.

I suspect there might be a high incidence of PE haters amongst runners. Certainly when I was at school the emphasis was on team sports.  If you weren’t good with a ball or otherwise well coordinated school PE was an exercise in ritual humiliation. I’ve never grown to like team sports and that’s one of the reasons why I run now. Tim

Response:

Dr. Atkins in his various books promoting a high protein low calorie diet says the overall increase in American’s weight is due to the availability and increase of starch and sugars in the American diet. Along with this has been an increase in weight related diseases such as diabetes. This starts early, as someone as pointed out, most school cafeterias now have soda machines with 150 calories of sugar in each bottle, as well as ice-cream, etc. This is accompanied by ever larger portions in diners and fast food restaurants. To accomodate this increase in sugar-starch calories, the body increases its capacity to produce insulin. This in turn accomdates the person’s ability to eat more and more sugars and starches, and then immediately be hungry a half an hour later.  Eventually with extremely overweight people, they can eat almost continuously and never be hungry. Despite all the American outcry over fat in diets, Americans have not increased their consumption of meats and other fats.  They have increased their consumption of sugars and starch. France for example has a diet that is extremely high in fat and butter, much higher than the US, but the weights are lower and the incidence of diabetes and heart attacks lower. Dr. Atkins diet, advocating high protein, low or no sugar-starch, was much maligned by traditional medicine. For years called dangerous, etc., but in recent years many other diet-doctors have advocated such a diet, because it is the only thing that works for people whose bodies can over produce insulin. For these people, simply reducing sugar-starch calories is not enough. They simply get hungry, binge, and then gain back the weight. A low sugar-starch calorie diet will produce weight loss in those who have not gained the ability to produce high amounts of insulin. An all protein-fat diet is difficult, I am on one. For one thing, it is difficult to find any food in america that does not have sugar. For example, ketchup, breads, just about anything. But it does lose weight after a period of adjustment. As another note, I have found that simply running alone does not significantly change weight on a sugar-starch diet. I am several minutes faster over 5km, but I am just a more in-condition heavy person. (This is from being a 145lb high school miler).  Over years, my bodies ability accomodate high levels of sugars and starch has produced the ability to generate much insulin and digest pastas, breads, sugars, etc, and yet be hungry very quickly thereafter.  The point being that diet is probably more effective and independent of exercise as a method of weight loss.  If you are a great producer of insulin, you can exercise, eat starches and sugars, immediately digest them, put back the fat, and be the same weight as if you had not exercised at all. There are no fat vegetarians, to my knowledge. paul streitz

Response:

I was in a major department store yesterday shopping for a belt to replace one that I had which was worn out. I could not find any that were small enough! The rack was full of size Medium (32 – 36 inch waist) and larger sizes. They had no smaller sizes which would accomodate someone with a 30 – 31 " waist. Buying a 32 – 36 belt would mean punching extra holes just to be able to wear it, and then it would have too much extra length. Anyone else having these problems lately? Seems like I have been seeing a lot more "hefty" people these days. Is it just my imagination? Are physically fit people going to be the next ‘minority’ in the USA??

Not being from America I can tell you that the general perception of Americans here is that they are all fat and lazy, and do nothing but eat and watch TV all day. I’m sure it’s not true, but that’s the impression we get across the Atlantic.  We ain’t far behind though I suspect. — Brian Wakem

Response:

As for the story about your Dad and the parking ticket… the cop of course just did as he should have and gave him a ticket because he didn’t have a handicapped permit on his car. The judge was clearly a complete ass though. I can’t believe he said that!!!

Maybe I edited it out (trust me, you want me to cut my messages short – I can run on), but my Dad did have the permit on the car. In the cop’s defense, the whole permit system was new at the time, and the cop seemed to think that it only applied to drivers. I wonder which judge it was. We have one judge who fired his staff for telling a higher up the judge was drunk while sitting on the bench. The local newspaper published an article on Feb 14th about the judge, and the judge was bragging about it in the bar, and got thrown out when he took off his shoes and pants. In the judge’s defense, the judge says he doesn’t remember being in that bar that day. Might explain a lot. Rob

Response:

In China, my size was a comfortable M, but in the States it’s S. Size labeling varies depending on where we are. When you travel to Asia, remember to shop for belts on your trip. I am a regular fit person in clothing style. (5′8, 145lb, 38) My dress pants size is 30×30. Even if I can find the right size in the States, they look like a pair of lanterns on me. Need to find the nonpleated. Shopping for shirt is also a problem. With 15.5 neck size, I simply can’t fill up the shirt around waist. Need to find what’s called athletic fit. Tian Liu

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was in a major department store yesterday shopping for a belt to replace one that I had which was worn out. I could not find any that were small enough! The rack was full of size Medium (32 – 36 inch waist) and larger sizes. They had no smaller sizes which would accomodate someone with a 30 – 31 " waist. Buying a 32 – 36 belt would mean punching extra holes just to be able to wear it, and then it would have too much extra length. Anyone else having these problems lately? Seems like I have been seeing a lot more "hefty" people these days. Is it just my imagination? Are physically fit people going to be the next ‘minority’ in the USA??

Response:

In China, my size was a comfortable M, but in the States it’s S. Size labeling varies depending on where we are. When you travel to Asia, remember to shop for belts on your trip.

In Bangladesh, I got shirts in XXL, the largest they had. The guys are small down there. In Denmark I use shirts in size Large, and might occasionally fit a size M T-shirt. I am a regular fit person in clothing style. (5′8, 145lb, 38) My dress pants size is 30×30. Even if I can find the right size in the States, they look like a pair of lanterns on me. Need to find the nonpleated.

I am 168 cm tall (My calculator can’t convert to ft and inches), 185-190 lbs (20 lbs down when I was in marathon shape, 38" around my waist). I am solidly built. Good strong bones, wide over shoulders (my father game from a farm, so I guess my frame is from there, but I am tiny compared to the cousin who is a blacksmith) Most sizes in Denmark are in centimeters though, and my size is still pretty mainstream.

Response:

On 24 Feb 2002 TenKMan was possessed by a lesser demon and then forced to post this: There was a good article in the USAToday last week about the obesity epidemic which discussed the angle of the food culture and the fact that high fat food is so available and heavily advertized and painted the easy/fast food industry as being pushy with regards to food products.

In the London Financial Times there was an article about how in the near future there will be a pensions crisis as older people live longer. Maybe the government sees some benefit in people dropping dead earlier and therefore encourages the growth of the fastfood industry! — Strider

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] I only found three reasonable looking vanilla full fat ice creams. There were heaps of reduced fat and heaps with all manner of things added. [snip] Want to see something scary? Next time you’re in the dairy asile, compare the ingredient lists of regular, light and ultra light Philly Cream Chesse. In particualar, compare light to ultra light. The ultra light has more than TWICE the number of ingredients as the regular light! It seems like the "lighter" stuff gets… the more chemicals and crap they put into it. I’m guessing that the ultra light "cream chesse" would look almost exactly like petroleum jelly without all those chemical additives That’s why, while I do keep my saturated fat intake down, when I DO choose to have a scoop of ice cream now and then, I only eat stuff like Ben & Jerrys. The first ingredients listed are always Cream and Sugar. And there aren’t usually more than a handful of ingredients.

What gets me is people with weight problems NOT eating normal food (vegies, salad, fruit, bread/cereals/pasta, pulses, eggs/cheese/yogurt, and, meat and fish for the carnivores of you out there), but buying some kind of tortured and distorted imitation of real food with less "fat calories", a shitload of sugar or something artificial that taste sweetish. Weird! My approach to ice cream involves real fruit, and a moderate quantity of real ice cream. Casual observation of the general population tells me they go for quantity and appearance. Ultimately their appearance becomes one of great quantity… Maybe a diagnosis of Insulin Resistance would sort a few of them out (it did for a couple of friends of mine). T.

Response:

Tom, I am overweight, and deal with a lot of people who are and are insulin resistant. I have seen resistance to a eating style change and exercise, and preference for drugs instead. That being said, I have the worst absolute time with diet, but exercise a good deal more than I should. Victoria

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What gets me is people with weight problems NOT eating normal food (vegies, salad, fruit, bread/cereals/pasta, pulses, eggs/cheese/yogurt, and, meat and fish for the carnivores of you out there), but buying some kind of tortured and distorted imitation of real food with less "fat calories", a shitload of sugar or something artificial that taste sweetish. Weird! My approach to ice cream involves real fruit, and a moderate quantity of real ice cream. Casual observation of the general population tells me they go for quantity and appearance. Ultimately their appearance becomes one of great quantity… Maybe a diagnosis of Insulin Resistance would sort a few of them out (it did for a couple of friends of mine). T.

Response:

Anyone else having these problems lately? Seems like I have been seeing a lot more "hefty" people these days. Is it just my imagination?

Imagination? Us folks in the good old USA are setting obesity records each year. Are physically fit people going to be the next ‘minority’ in the USA??

And probably have a war; uniforms will not be necessary. — Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" – B. McKibben Doug Freese

Response:

It’s not just in America! The oddest experience I had yesterday was buying some full fat vanilla ice cream (ie, the standard). The supermarket ice cream section was huge (half an aisle by five shelves), but I only found three reasonable looking vanilla full fat ice creams. There were heaps of reduced fat and heaps with all manner of things added. So, not only is there a fat epidemic, there’s a marketing deception that a dietary solution exists, and that involves less fat, more sugar, and a whole lot of wishful thinking about fulfilment. Tom. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … Are physically fit people going to be the next ‘minority’ in the USA??

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s not just in America! The oddest experience I had yesterday was buying some full fat vanilla ice cream (ie, the standard). The supermarket ice cream section was huge (half an aisle by five shelves), but I only found three reasonable looking vanilla full fat ice creams. There were heaps of reduced fat and heaps with all manner of things added. So, not only is there a fat epidemic, there’s a marketing deception that a dietary solution exists, and that involves less fat, more sugar, and a whole lot of wishful thinking about fulfilment. Tom.

So true. I also read somewhere in the past few days that the portion sizes we normally see are getting larger. This is something most people don’t need. But it is done as a marketing ploy to convince people that they are getting more value for their money. More value while many are risking their long term health. I don’t think the perceived value is worth the health problems being generated, and all the resources which must be mustered to help treat people with disorders which ‘might’ have been preventable in the first place.

Response:

The nearest city (Columbus, Ohio) to me is the 5th, down from 4th last year, fattest city in the USA.  Goes to show you that American are really fat! —

Response:

my Dad did have the permit on the car. Opps. Sorry. I read the story pretty quickly.

That’s a problem I have. I type at 60 wpm, and so people tend to read it too fast. Perhaps if I typed slower, my posts wouldn’t be so confusing! <g Rob

Response:

I have also noticed here in Denmark, that there are a lot more teenagers that are fat than in my time.

Same impression when I went back to the UK after 3 years away. Frightening really.

Response:

do read the post first Jonathan

(snip) … because he – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – didn’t have a handicapped permit on his car. The judge was clearly a complete ass though. I can’t believe he said that!!! — David L. Nova Scotia, Canada.

Response:

Isn’t Homer dead? J

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You came to the wrong conclusion.  There were no small belts because people are getting thinner and the demand for smaller clothes is exceeding the supply. My problem is finding shirts that were not designed for Homer Simpson. I was in a major department store yesterday shopping for a belt to replace one that I had which was worn out. I could not find any that were small enough! The rack was full of size Medium (32 – 36 inch waist) and larger sizes. They had no smaller sizes which would accomodate someone with a 30 – 31 " waist. Buying a 32 – 36 belt would mean punching extra holes just to be able to wear it, and then it would have too much extra length. Anyone else having these problems lately? Seems like I have been seeing a lot more "hefty" people these days. Is it just my imagination? Are physically fit people going to be the next ‘minority’ in the USA??

Response:

I was in a major department store yesterday shopping for a belt to replace one that I had which was worn out. I could not find any that were small enough! The rack was full of size Medium (32 – 36 inch waist) and larger sizes. They had no smaller sizes which would accomodate someone with a 30 – 31 " waist. Buying a 32 – 36 belt would mean punching extra holes just to be able to wear it, and then it would have too much extra length.

To talk about this specific problem, let me share what I do with my belts.  They are leather and when they get old or I don’t like them anymore, I take them to a shoe repair store and have them cut the belt to size for my kids.  It is hard to find a decent kids belt (it seems they are all made of plastic) and for 2 bucks, they get a nice leather belt and there isn’t too much length.  I have a belt that I wore for 4 years and now each of my three boys has worn.  I had it cut down to fit a 5 year-old so each bot has worn it. There was a good article in the USAToday last week about the obesity epidemic which discussed the angle of the food culture and the fact that high fat food is so available and heavily advertized and painted the easy/fast food industry as being pushy with regards to food products. David Olsen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone else having these problems lately? Seems like I have been seeing a lot more "hefty" people these days. Is it just my imagination? Are physically fit people going to be the next ‘minority’ in the USA??

Response:

… Also, in Canada, the government is now forcing our airlines to give obese people a second seat for free if they cannot physically fit into one seat. I’m not sure how I feel about that. The idea is that by not giving obese people a second seat *for free*, the airlines are guilty of discrimination. Essentially, the outcome of that case was to treat obesity as a disability and pass the costs of this new policy onto the flying public. Again, not sure what I think of that.

Then they should charge plane tickets by weight of passenger instead. Or maybe have the passenger order a seat of a certain width, say like 3 sizes available, so than you can get a more comfortable seat. That would possible make it legal. The obese people are putting enough extra costs on the government. I think it will soon be the time to create a tax that will hit these people. Or all us people who are not very fat will find another place to live. I have also noticed here in Denmark, that there are a lot more teenagers that are fat than in my time. It is quite noticeable in town saturday evening, when they all want to play britney spears. They should try to get closer to a Britney / Jennifer Lopez shape before showing their excessive skin. We had none when I went to school (3 classes, like 65-75 kids), and the biggest guy is just normal size now as grown-up.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone else having these problems lately? Seems like I have been seeing a lot more "hefty" people these days. Is it just my imagination? Put it this way… I don’t know if this was an exaggeration or a misrepresentation, but I recently heard from an American friend of mine that in the States, some WalMart stores have golf carts to taxi fat people around the store. Good lord. Want more proof? Anyone see the "Glutton Bowl" on Fox last Thursday? Frightening… not to mention just plain gross. The funniest thing was when this little Asian fellow (130 lbs. and quote muscular… unlike his 300 lb. competition) ate 32 hotdogs in… I don’t know… 5 minutes? When he won, the commentators said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, now THERE is an athlete at the top of his game". Athlete?! I know it was Fox… but still… that was just beyond belief! Also, in Canada, the government is now forcing our airlines to give obese people a second seat for free if they cannot physically fit into one seat. I’m not sure how I feel about that. The idea is that by not giving obese people a second seat *for free*, the airlines are guilty of discrimination. Essentially, the outcome of that case was to treat obesity as a disability and pass the costs of this new policy onto the flying public. Again, not sure what I think of that.

Wow! If you get enough of those folks on your flight, the plane might not get off the ground! Somehow, somewhere along the line, things seem to have gotten off track. There will probably be a huge wave of people dying from heart disease in the not too distant future, if it isn’t already happening. In a way, it is very sad.

Response:

but I recently heard from an American friend of mine that in the States, some WalMart stores have golf carts to taxi fat people around the store.

The "golf carts" are supposed to be for those with leg, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, arthritis, or respiratory problems that make getting around the store too difficult. Are they used by fat people? Probably, but the morbidly obese are also at risk for joint problems and diabetes. Realize that I know people who were diagnosed with diabetes when they had to get their feet amputated. Are there people who shouldn’t be using them? Yeah. But for the majority of users, the carts enable them to have a more normal life than they might otherwise. Rob (My father was given a ticket for parking in a handicapped space using a handicapped permit, yet was obviously not handicapped. What the cop failed to realize was that he was going in to pick up my mother, who was wheelchair bound from multiple strokes. My dad had hoped to make her life a little better by taking her out for a hair appointment. The judge said that if my mother was that handicapped, she should stay home, and made my dad pay the ticket.) (Oh, who’s cranky today? I gotta get off this computer and go running.)

Response:

I was in a major department store yesterday shopping for a belt to replace one that I had which was worn out. I could not find any that were small enough! The rack was full of size Medium (32 – 36 inch waist) and larger sizes. They had no smaller sizes which would accomodate someone with a 30 – 31 " waist. Buying a 32 – 36 belt would mean punching extra holes just to be able to wear it, and then it would have too much extra length. Anyone else having these problems lately? Seems like I have been seeing a lot more "hefty" people these days. Is it just my imagination? Are physically fit people going to be the next ‘minority’ in the USA??

Response:

You came to the wrong conclusion.  There were no small belts because people are getting thinner and the demand for smaller clothes is exceeding the supply. My problem is finding shirts that were not designed for Homer Simpson. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was in a major department store yesterday shopping for a belt to replace one that I had which was worn out. I could not find any that were small enough! The rack was full of size Medium (32 – 36 inch waist) and larger sizes. They had no smaller sizes which would accomodate someone with a 30 – 31 " waist. Buying a 32 – 36 belt would mean punching extra holes just to be able to wear it, and then it would have too much extra length. Anyone else having these problems lately? Seems like I have been seeing a lot more "hefty" people these days. Is it just my imagination? Are physically fit people going to be the next ‘minority’ in the USA??

Response:

<<Anyone else having these problems lately? Seems like I have been seeing a lot more "hefty" people these days. Is it just my imagination? Are physically fit people going to be the next ‘minority’ in the USA?? We already ARE!  60% of people are overweight!  Look around sometime in a public cross-section place like Disneyland or a highway rest area and you will see way more heavy people than average-weight people. Yesterday we popped into a new Starbucks (out of town, visiting my MIL) and all but one of the teens behind the counter were overweight.  Seems like "back in my day" (20-25 years ago) that was not the case – there were one or two fat kids, not *most* of them!!  :-o In a culture where "fries and Coke" are a kid’s (my nephew’s) first words, what else do you expect?

Response:

Question:

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:16:34 -0500, "jack n dalton" <jdal…@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >My main problem was that I precipitated my first BIG MS attack by going on a >crash diet and losing 32 pound is around 45 days. Yep I went from 27% >bodyfat to 19% bodyfat. I even went and had myself totally immersed in the >tank to document it all. Myelin is a "fatty" substance that insulated the >nerves and I "burnt it off" with the rest of my body fat. I did not know I >had MS at the time. I learned very quickly what I had done to myself.

Jack, I have not *yet* been diagnosed w./MS…I am merely a "suspect" but what you said above struck me like a bolt of lightening! For about 5 months before my big attack, I had joined a gym…and 4 days a week I sweated, walked, lifted weights,took classes, dieted, etc. I was beginning to notice a difference in my physical appearance but I was feeling worse and worse w/ each passing day…fatigue, night sweats, chills. I went to the dr who reviewed my work-out and diet plan and saw nothing out of the ordinary…I was working w/ both a trainer and a dietician, so nothing was too extreme. He was, in fact, surprised that I was feeling so down…he felt the whole endorphin-thing should have long since kicked in, providing that little extra boost of energy and well-being. I finally quit going altogether in October and not 3 weeks later +wham+….ON and severe demyelination from head to toe along the right side of my body. It took weeks and weeks to recover and since then have had other MS symptoms. That was 20 mths ago. Could I have brought on that first attack? I want so badly to begin an exercise regimen again but have been unable to…or rather…I can do it…go for long walks, work in the yard…but then I am knocked-out,dead-tired for 3 days after. Or perhaps…I should just go all out and sweat like a mule in the southern summer heat and bring on another big one…perhaps then I will no longer be just a suspect:/ Rhonda

Response:

I’m not gonna get too specific here, Monica, partly because eveyone’s different and partly because I’m not up on what’s what in the world of nutrition… but I can tell you this much: If you’re reasonably healthy – that is, if your extra weight isn’t due to something gone wrong with your metabolism or your fluid balance – then to lose weight, you have to eat less energy than you use up in doing what you do. This can be done either by increasing your energy output through exercise (or to a small degree by chilling yourself a bit,) or by decreasing your calorie intake by either reducing how much you eat or switching to less calorie-rich foods. Decreasing sodium intake (salt, MSG, nitrites, etc.,) will help spill the extra water that gets stored in fatty tissue too, but if your health is reasonably good, getting rid of the fat will give that water no place to hide. In a nutshell:  (put less energy in)  .or.  (put more energy out)  =  (lose weight) For people in fair health, there simply is no other way short of surgical removal. —           ((((((((((U)))))))))) Michael <muirh…@island.net>    -=| Livin’ on Island Time |=- "Monica" <renonativ…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20010802110441.02040.00002449@ng-bd1.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello everyone. > Since there are so many diets out there to lose weight, I’m hoping that some of > you may have had success with a couple diets I could try and not have > complications with my MS.  I tried this doctor’s diet, I forget the name (of > course), and I lost all my strength (everywhere) while trying it.  This is a > hoot…the diet said it would give me energy… instead it depleted all I have > in the world. > I’ve looked high and low on the net and can’t find anything any information on > diets & ms.  The only thing that comes up when I search is the MS diet, of > course which states to eat tons of fish, which I actually do.  I just have got > to get rid of some of this weight or I will outgrow my wheelchair.  Funny thing > is, I don’t eat that much of anything. > Thank you most kindly for all your help. > Monica

Response:

Hi Monica,  I’ve been involved with the "Soution Program".  It deals with the underlying reasons that people overeat such as feelings and other needs that aren’t being met.  I find the program very helpful for coping with MS as well.  It teaches "developmental skills" that we might not have gotten as children, the basic ones being self-nurturing and setting limits.  I don’t know if you could find groups in your area but there is a web site, www.weightsolution.com, and a book by Laurel Mellin, The Solution, Winning Ways to Permanent Weight Loss.  Check it out.  It’s an amazing program! I’ve often thought it would be great for MSers.  Kai "Monica" <renonativ…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20010802110441.02040.00002449@ng-bd1.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello everyone. > Since there are so many diets out there to lose weight, I’m hoping that some of > you may have had success with a couple diets I could try and not have > complications with my MS.  I tried this doctor’s diet, I forget the name (of > course), and I lost all my strength (everywhere) while trying it.  This is a > hoot…the diet said it would give me energy… instead it depleted all I have > in the world. > I’ve looked high and low on the net and can’t find anything any information on > diets & ms.  The only thing that comes up when I search is the MS diet, of > course which states to eat tons of fish, which I actually do.  I just have got > to get rid of some of this weight or I will outgrow my wheelchair.  Funny thing > is, I don’t eat that much of anything. > Thank you most kindly for all your help. > Monica

Response:

in article b55jmtsnjdsrtb94cmv6fjh4g1c0omo…@4ax.com, Rhonda at rpw…@ix.netcom.com wrote on 8/2/01 2:13 PM: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:16:34 -0500, "jack n dalton" > <jdal…@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> I precipitated my first BIG MS attack by going on a >> crash diet and losing 32 pound is around 45 days. > I finally quit going altogether in October and not 3 weeks later > +wham+….ON and severe demyelination from head to toe along the right > side of my body.

Well, here’s my anecdote. I’ve had two exacerbations: October, 1999 and November, 2000.  Both came shortly after an annual mystery convention called Bouchercon.  Both years, I "crash dieted," just because it’s a public appearance for me and I want to look good. I probably only lost 10-15 pounds each time, but it happened fast. The conventions were in October 1999 and September 2000.  I’ve actually been a little afraid to lose the extra 10 I’m carrying right now.  Make of that what you will. Keith http://www.woollymammoth.com/keith (New newsletter now online!)

Response:

Oops — typo correction. My exacerbations were October 10, 1999 and November 3, 2000.  The conventions were October 3, 1999 and September 7, 2000.  The bulk (so to speak) of the weight loss would have been during the month before each convention. Bigger gap the second time; had the flu (or something like it) the first time.  Dunno if any of this means anything or not. Keith http://www.woollymammoth.com/keith (New newsletter now online!)

Response:

In my experience, It’s not how much one eats, but WHAT.  My downfall is chocolate and desserts.  A really good diet with LOTS of vegetables (without fatty sauces) and fish and lean meat will keep you healthy and hopefully at your correct weight.  Limited mobility is a problem because we can’t burn off the food we eat, so the thing is not to eat fat and stuff that is bad for us. Good luck with it.   Carmel – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Monica wrote: > Hello everyone. > Since there are so many diets out there to lose weight, I’m hoping that some of > you may have had success with a couple diets I could try and not have > complications with my MS.  I tried this doctor’s diet, I forget the name (of > course), and I lost all my strength (everywhere) while trying it.  This is a > hoot…the diet said it would give me energy… instead it depleted all I have > in the world. > I’ve looked high and low on the net and can’t find anything any information on > diets & ms.  The only thing that comes up when I search is the MS diet, of > course which states to eat tons of fish, which I actually do.  I just have got > to get rid of some of this weight or I will outgrow my wheelchair.  Funny thing > is, I don’t eat that much of anything. > Thank you most kindly for all your help. > Monica

– "Don’t wait for a light to appear at the end of the tunnel.   Stride down there and light the bloody thing yourself!" Web sites at http://www.jaragun.com/ http://www.geocities.com/peripata/

Response:

Hello everyone. Since there are so many diets out there to lose weight, I’m hoping that some of you may have had success with a couple diets I could try and not have complications with my MS.  I tried this doctor’s diet, I forget the name (of course), and I lost all my strength (everywhere) while trying it.  This is a hoot…the diet said it would give me energy… instead it depleted all I have in the world. I’ve looked high and low on the net and can’t find anything any information on diets & ms.  The only thing that comes up when I search is the MS diet, of course which states to eat tons of fish, which I actually do.  I just have got to get rid of some of this weight or I will outgrow my wheelchair.  Funny thing is, I don’t eat that much of anything. Thank you most kindly for all your help. Monica

Response:

Hello Monica I find the main problem is lack of, inability, or lack of determination to exercise and burn calories. I also find that eating little treats is my way of coping with depression and that it is terrible for any diet. I accept the fact that I do not need an exercise physiotherapist or dietician. I need a good psychologist to make ANY low calorie, low saturated fat diet work. My main problem was that I precipitated my first BIG MS attack by going on a crash diet and losing 32 pound is around 45 days. Yep I went from 27% bodyfat to 19% bodyfat. I even went and had myself totally immersed in the tank to document it all. Myelin is a "fatty" substance that insulated the nerves and I "burnt it off" with the rest of my body fat. I did not know I had MS at the time. I learned very quickly what I had done to myself. The final line in weight loss is calories. Burn more then you take in. Your situation has some extra consideration like how to exercise enough if you use a wheelchair. I would also suggest you plan to eat several small fruit type snacks to keep you energy(sugar) levels up.  I suggest you monitor your consumption and keep a diary of you consumption. Remember quantities count and must be limited also. What I dread most is that I become quite unhappy and anxious when I am dieting. I realize that if my activity level when up, especially social (non-eating) activities, I might help my cause. I hope you find the solution for you. Jack "Monica" <renonativ…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20010802110441.02040.00002449@ng-bd1.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello everyone. > Since there are so many diets out there to lose weight, I’m hoping that some of > you may have had success with a couple diets I could try and not have > complications with my MS.  I tried this doctor’s diet, I forget the name (of > course), and I lost all my strength (everywhere) while trying it.  This is a > hoot…the diet said it would give me energy… instead it depleted all I have > in the world. > I’ve looked high and low on the net and can’t find anything any information on > diets & ms.  The only thing that comes up when I search is the MS diet, of > course which states to eat tons of fish, which I actually do.  I just have got > to get rid of some of this weight or I will outgrow my wheelchair.  Funny thing > is, I don’t eat that much of anything. > Thank you most kindly for all your help. > Monica

Response:

One of the women who attends our MS exercise class has lost 42 pounds in about a year by doing our exercises daily (they are not hard for most people) and by following advice she learned from Weight Watchers. MSers **can lose weight.  So why can’t I????? Gaylan

Response:

This makes lots of sense, Cyd.  Thanks.  I’ll try it.   I could do without about a third of my body weight right now, and I know that a good part of the problem is timing.  We eat our biggest meal at night, and then we have a cup of hot chocolate and biscuits after. Sometimes, when we have WWOOFers we have the main meal at lunch time and a snack at night and I really like this a lot better.  But Colin likes his big meal at night, and it’s easier to go along with that than to try to fight it.  (I’ve been trying for twenty years, during which I’ve turned into a blimp).   Also, cooking the main meal at lunchtime cuts severely into my working time.  Our customers start work anywhere between 2 am and 9 am. and the early-start ones finish around lunch time.  So I have to have most of my business done by mid afternoon, with just before lunch time being the optimum time to contact most people.  Consequently, Colin often makes lunch, and it’s usually leftovers from last night’s feast.  I get more time to cook in the evening (sometimes).   I haven’t really been able to work out a solution to this, but your idea of snacking all day on the right foods might mean that I wouldn’t want to eat much at night (or could even skip dinner completely) even though Colin proceeds normally, for him.  It would also fit my work pattern better – so long as he cooked his own dinner.  ;) BIG drawback!!!  After all these years, I’ve finally got a food processor (surplus to requirements in the processing kitchen), and discovered that perfect pastry is a *piece of piss!!* using it.  So now I want to make pies and more pies.  They give me indigestion, but they’re SO good.  Maybe after I’ve done it enough times to get sick of it, I’ll have it out of my system.  ;) Carmel – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Cyd wrote: > I’ve also discovered it’s not just what you eat or how much… it’s timing. > Honestly, for the longest time I was eating less than 1000 calories a day… > and still not losing weight (I could stand to lose about thirty pounds). > Problem was, since I reduced my calorie intake, and pretty much only > really had dinner, throughout the day my body thought I was starving > it, so therefore stopped burning calories as efficiently. It wasn’t being > fed most of the day, and then just getting a good meal for dinner, and > packing it away for later. > I’ve recently started looking at things from dietsmart.com and > e-diets.com, and been getting what I see to be some very healthy > advice. > namely, cut back on the sugars tremendously. Eat the normal carbs I > would during dinner (rice, pasta, potatoes). But INCREASE the number > of small snacks I have during the day. > For example, a turkey slice or two, some carrots, some celery, other > vegetable and/or protien type snacks. but I’m literally eating ALL > DAY LONG. > And I seem to be losing weight doing it! > My body no longer thinks it’s being starved, since it’s constantly > getting fed little bits all day. The little bits are low calorie and low/no > fat/no sugar. I’m eating vegetable snacks all day long, occasionally > some yogurt, some cheese thrown in here or there… But I’m snacking > all day long, just on the RIGHT foods. I’m not snacking on candy and > doritos and chips, I’m snacking on carrots and protien bars and low-fat > yogurts. So I’m essentially eating all day long, and eating the same or > a greater number of calories… but losing weight faster, because I’m > not concentrating my eating times, so my body isn’t fighting me tooth > and nail. > I’m eating like a pig. But because I’m eating the right foods, it’s helping > me tremendously. > However, my suggestion to you would be if you join up for e-diets or > dietsmart, DON’T check off the box that says "do you have a chronic > illness?". Why? Because if you do, they won’t take you at all. Even if > your doctor has been telling you to go on a diet, they won’t take you > if you’re being seen for a chronic illness. > I use my brain when it comes to it. There are certain things they > recommend that I know I really shouldn’t have. There are certain foods > I don’t like. So I substitute one of their "legal free foods" instead. Some > foods you can eat all day long, and your body won’t have objections > to (carrots, celery, broccoli, etc. Although go easy on the carrots, you > can get a yellow skin tone if you eat TOO many of them). > And my own favorite personal suggestion? Get a vacuum sealer. > I own one of those vacuum sealers. And I adore it. I have gotten into > the habit of pre-packing my snack foods and even some of my meals > into the vacuum bags, so I can take them to work with no problems, > and it keeps me on track with the calorie intake without worrying about > having to prepare everything right before I eat it. I pre-prep everything > once or twice a week, vacuum it up, put it in the fridge, then just take > it out as I need it. > does all this make sense? > Cyd (who wants to lose 20 lbs by October… Going to someone’s > wedding, and want to fit into some of my old dresses…)

– "Don’t wait for a light to appear at the end of the tunnel.   Stride down there and light the bloody thing yourself!" Web sites at http://www.jaragun.com/ http://www.geocities.com/peripata/

Response:

Hi Monica, I had the same wonders and worries anbout MS and weight loss. People who "go running" after work see it as an obligation, but I see it as a luxury. The fatigue and all with MS, the problems walking (sometimes happens, sometimes no) and overheating, really complicate a relatively simple thing. Gee, a few years ago I’d take classes at Lucille Roberts gym- I tried step at a local place and was dagerous! I tripped, lost coordination, had to hold onto the wall… I don’t eat sweets anymore (but I have been dying for icecream) and basically follow a low-carb and low-fat regime during the week, and maybe a treat on the weekend. It is working slowly! It is so frustrating as I am *not* bingeing or snacking or overeating, and my thyroid and all are normal, but I would just love to drop 30 lbs. My body won’t do it. Well, it is doing it but too slowly. I guess the thong will have to wait. At least I know I am eating healthy (actually the healthiest I ever have), and I stopped obsessing. I think that’s the key. Put eating on autopilot, don’t think about it, and on good days here and there try to do something extra physically if you can. I want to get one of those "pedal things" so I can bike from a chair while watching TV. I also do light arm weights; every little bit helps! Good luck, you aren’t alone… Kim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Michael wrote in message <9kcb95$3mso…@ID-78693.news.dfncis.de>… >I’m not gonna get too specific here, Monica, partly because eveyone’s different >and partly because I’m not up on what’s what in the world of nutrition… but I >can tell you this much: >If you’re reasonably healthy – that is, if your extra weight isn’t due to >something gone wrong with your metabolism or your fluid balance – then to lose >weight, you have to eat less energy than you use up in doing what you do. >This can be done either by increasing your energy output through exercise (or to a >small degree by chilling yourself a bit,) or by decreasing your calorie intake by >either reducing how much you eat or switching to less calorie-rich foods. >Decreasing sodium intake (salt, MSG, nitrites, etc.,) will help spill the extra >water that gets stored in fatty tissue too, but if your health is reasonably good, >getting rid of the fat will give that water no place to hide. >In a nutshell:  (put less energy in)  .or.  (put more energy out)  =  (lose >weight) >For people in fair health, there simply is no other way short of surgical removal. >– >          ((((((((((U)))))))))) >Michael <muirh…@island.net> >   -=| Livin’ on Island Time |=- >"Monica" <renonativ…@aol.com> wrote in message >news:20010802110441.02040.00002449@ng-bd1.aol.com… >> Hello everyone. >> Since there are so many diets out there to lose weight, I’m hoping that some of >> you may have had success with a couple diets I could try and not have >> complications with my MS.  I tried this doctor’s diet, I forget the name (of >> course), and I lost all my strength (everywhere) while trying it.  This is a >> hoot…the diet said it would give me energy… instead it depleted all I have >> in the world. >> I’ve looked high and low on the net and can’t find anything any information on >> diets & ms.  The only thing that comes up when I search is the MS diet, of >> course which states to eat tons of fish, which I actually do.  I just have got >> to get rid of some of this weight or I will outgrow my wheelchair.  Funny thing >> is, I don’t eat that much of anything. >> Thank you most kindly for all your help. >> Monica

Response:

In article <3B69F26E.CC7C8…@cyberwizards.com.au>, carmel says… >In my experience, It’s not how much one eats, but WHAT.  My downfall is >chocolate and desserts.  A really good diet with LOTS of vegetables >(without fatty sauces) and fish and lean meat will keep you healthy and >hopefully at your correct weight.  Limited mobility is a problem because >we can’t burn off the food we eat, so the thing is not to eat fat and >stuff that is bad for us. >Good luck with it.   >Carmel

Carmel, I’ve also discovered it’s not just what you eat or how much… it’s timing. Honestly, for the longest time I was eating less than 1000 calories a day… and still not losing weight (I could stand to lose about thirty pounds). Problem was, since I reduced my calorie intake, and pretty much only really had dinner, throughout the day my body thought I was starving it, so therefore stopped burning calories as efficiently. It wasn’t being fed most of the day, and then just getting a good meal for dinner, and packing it away for later. I’ve recently started looking at things from dietsmart.com and e-diets.com, and been getting what I see to be some very healthy advice. namely, cut back on the sugars tremendously. Eat the normal carbs I would during dinner (rice, pasta, potatoes). But INCREASE the number of small snacks I have during the day. For example, a turkey slice or two, some carrots, some celery, other vegetable and/or protien type snacks. but I’m literally eating ALL DAY LONG. And I seem to be losing weight doing it! My body no longer thinks it’s being starved, since it’s constantly getting fed little bits all day. The little bits are low calorie and low/no fat/no sugar. I’m eating vegetable snacks all day long, occasionally some yogurt, some cheese thrown in here or there… But I’m snacking all day long, just on the RIGHT foods. I’m not snacking on candy and doritos and chips, I’m snacking on carrots and protien bars and low-fat yogurts. So I’m essentially eating all day long, and eating the same or a greater number of calories… but losing weight faster, because I’m not concentrating my eating times, so my body isn’t fighting me tooth and nail. I’m eating like a pig. But because I’m eating the right foods, it’s helping me tremendously. However, my suggestion to you would be if you join up for e-diets or dietsmart, DON’T check off the box that says "do you have a chronic illness?". Why? Because if you do, they won’t take you at all. Even if your doctor has been telling you to go on a diet, they won’t take you if you’re being seen for a chronic illness. I use my brain when it comes to it. There are certain things they recommend that I know I really shouldn’t have. There are certain foods I don’t like. So I substitute one of their "legal free foods" instead. Some foods you can eat all day long, and your body won’t have objections to (carrots, celery, broccoli, etc. Although go easy on the carrots, you can get a yellow skin tone if you eat TOO many of them). And my own favorite personal suggestion? Get a vacuum sealer. I own one of those vacuum sealers. And I adore it. I have gotten into the habit of pre-packing my snack foods and even some of my meals into the vacuum bags, so I can take them to work with no problems, and it keeps me on track with the calorie intake without worrying about having to prepare everything right before I eat it. I pre-prep everything once or twice a week, vacuum it up, put it in the fridge, then just take it out as I need it. does all this make sense? Cyd (who wants to lose 20 lbs by October… Going to someone’s wedding, and want to fit into some of my old dresses…)

Response:

Question:

Doctors Rate Popular Diet Books Low-Fat Books Score Healthiest; High-Protein, Atkins-Style Diets Earn ‘Unsafe’ Rating

look up the statistics for the number of deaths that occur in the US each year through ‘medical misadventure’, and you’ll probably rate doctors as unsafe.

Response:

And what’s your point?  It’s not like we haven’t heard all this crap

before. Not everyone knows as much as you and may find the information informative. I have only been low carbing for 5/6 weeks now and still find such articles interesting.  In fact I am just composing an email to send to author to ask for documented proof of the sites claims.  I won’t hold me breath! — George 5′11", age 32 LC start date 17/05/01 331/316/190ish

Response:

This is probably old news since the article is dated January 9, 2001 but the information came to me in my July, 2001 issue of "Focus On Healthy News." http://www.pcrm.org/news/health010109.html NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 9, 2001 CONTACT: Simon Chaitowitz, Communications Director Doctors Rate Popular Diet Books Low-Fat Books Score Healthiest; High-Protein, Atkins-Style Diets Earn ‘Unsafe’ Rating Washington, D.C.