| Author | Post |
|---|
tekito
New Member
| Joined: | 23 September 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
|
Posted: 14 November 2007 06:52 pm |
|
| It sounds weird to me (no carbs, high fat, making your body create something called "ketones"), but a lot of people seem to be heavily endorsing it. Anybody have an informed opinion?
|
nevd
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 14 November 2007 07:03 pm |
|
I did the diet (in one of its variations) quite a long time ago, so I guess that's as 'informed' as I can claim.
As a good, quick way to shed pounds, it's fine. Problems are: it's cloying - all that fat-rich food can make you retch! The ketosis makes your breath smell, so don't expect to be Mr or Ms Popularity for the duration.
A sandwich for me on this diet was a slice of cheese between two slices of corned beef! (Way before I went 'veggie', needless to say).
As a quick-fix, it's got its plus points. As a diet for life, it's a non-starter.
So now you know...
|
tekito
New Member
| Joined: | 23 September 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
|
Posted: 14 November 2007 08:25 pm |
|
| Nevd, I assume you still had to be in a caloric deficit to lose pounds?
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 14 November 2007 08:36 pm |
|
Yes, you have to have a calorie deficit.
It is difficult, but technically not impossible, to do a ketogenic diet as a vegeterian or even a vegan.
To go ketogenic, the key is to limit carbohydrate grams. The specific amount varies from person to person, may go ketogenic at 50g or as low as 20g.
One obvious downside is that it is difficult to exercise if you're eating less than 100g of carbs per day - you're spent!
|
tekito
New Member
| Joined: | 23 September 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
|
Posted: 14 November 2007 09:18 pm |
|
| I must say I find the diet theoretically fascinating, but it doesn't sound feasible for the longterm. Might still try it out sometime...
|
nevd
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 14 November 2007 11:07 pm |
|
Nevd, I assume you still had to be in a caloric deficit to lose pounds?
Apparently so.
All the research I've ever seen into the subject of high-fat/low-carb 'diets' suggests that despite being able to 'eat as much as you like', your intake is less because your appetite is sated more quickly.
As mentioned previously, I can't imagine anyone coping with this approach for more than a few months. I certainly couldn't.
|
Doug
New Member
| Joined: | 9 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 15 November 2007 12:49 am |
|
After I had a seizure a couple of years ago I looked at any available alternatives to the drugs, most of which have some nasty side effects.
The ketogenic diet is the only alternative treatment for epilepsy generally considered effective. Unfortunately it is only recommended for children since most adults that can buy their own food do not stick with it for very long. It is the exact opposite of what helped me lose weight. Instead of large volumes of low calorie food it requires very small quantities of calorie dense food. There is no way I could stick with it. I looked at a sample menu once. High fat sausage was the main course for breakfast. Lunch was "Mayonnaise with lettuce", they did not even dignify it by trying to call it a salad.
After looking at the diet I decided the side effects were not so bad. I think the epilepsy version of this diet might be more extreme than one aimed at losing weight. But I know it would not work for me when it came to maintaining my weight.
|
tekito
New Member
| Joined: | 23 September 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
|
Posted: 15 November 2007 03:01 am |
|
| Lol, for someone whose diet has been devoid of sausage, or bacon, or mayonnaise, etc, for quite some time now, your descriptions are only increasing the temptation! I'm sure it does become nauseating week after week, but the first couple days must be quite nice...
|
Dazed1
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 81 |
|
Posted: 15 November 2007 03:17 am |
|
| Tekito, I tried it twice and twice I had to drop it because it made my heart flutter at 6 weeks. I found it very very easy to eat very few calories, but this diet scared me. Now I just watch portions and type of food and exercize. No processed or fast food seems to be a better answer for me.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 15 November 2007 06:19 am |
|
| Ketosis, or the production of ketones is a process which always occurs when fat is burned. It can be detected bya smell of pear drops (usually detectable on the breath and inthe urine). The more fat your burn, the higher the proportion of ketones produces and the stronger the smell. In that way, all weight effective loss regimes are ketogenic. When someone is ill and off their food, it is often possible to smell ketones on them (it is especially detectable upon small children, especially babies, due to the relatively low level of natural body odour present).
|
nevd
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 November 2007 02:25 pm |
|
Can't argue with the science, Becci, but the high-fat/low-carb diet was the only one I tried where my wife mentioned the breath thing. Perhaps it metabolises fat faster? If you're young and very sociable (not guilty on both counts!) it might be something to bear in mind...
|
tekito
New Member
| Joined: | 23 September 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
|
Posted: 19 November 2007 04:33 pm |
|
| I guess my question, after reading all the responses, is does this diet burn fat more efficiently, or does it just cause people to eat less? If it's the latter, where people are just so sated with fatty foods they limit their food intake, okay, it works, but probably not worth all the undesirable side effects mentioned above (at least to me). But if this diet and the ketone thing somehow leads to a greater percentage or rate of fat being burned (for a given calorie intake), then I might consider it a real possibility.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 19 November 2007 07:45 pm |
|
Eating large amounts of protein has been found to have a suppressant effect upon appetite, but also, for some reason, cutting out carbohydrates reduces the body's ability to digest or access fat inthe diet, thus much of the fat you consume on a low carb diet passes straight through the body without being digested and thus the body cannot and does not absorb the calories from the fat. However, such a diet has extreme health risks. High cholesterol is often a result, as is kidney and heart disease. Risk of cancer of the rectum and stomach are also increased by following a high protein, high fat and low carb regime (such as the Atkins).
This diet works, in the sense that you do access energy stored in body tissues, only because you absorb less calories than you burn in every day life. You could acheive similar and just as spectacular results by eating a carb only or even a fat only diet, and they would be equally unhealthy. You could also achieve the same results by following a healthy balanced diet - dieting can be boring, but so can any regime. I would not reccommend going on any regime which specifically sets out to restrict nutrients which are likely to cause diseases of deficienty, which is exactly where you would be heading if you followed this kind of regime for more than a few days.
But it's a free world.......................
|
tekito
New Member
| Joined: | 23 September 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
|
Posted: 19 November 2007 11:53 pm |
|
That is at least the third different explanation I've read on why the ketogenic diet works (but also the most organized).
If a person were to eat healthy fats (such as olive oil, coconut oil, flax seed oil, etc) wouldn't he/she be able to avoid some of the health risks normally associated with a high fat diet?
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 20 November 2007 06:24 am |
|
Opinions vary as to the effectiveness of eating an Atkins style diet from vegetarian sources. (I am a vegetarian myself, so this is not just prejudice.) The problem is that on the kind of regime you descrtibe the goal is to reduce carbs to a negligible level - and vegetarian protein is almost always accompanied by at least a 25 to 30% level of carbohydrate AT SOURCE. THus, beans, a useful source of protein, have significant level sof carbohydrate, as does most other vegetarian sources of protein. Even milk has significant amounts of lactose (milk sugar, yes, you guessed it - carbohydrate). Soya mince, although high in protein, is, in part, carbohydrate, so is soya - it's a bit of a problem.
The reason for the health risks is the high cholesterol content of this type of diet - and the protein source problem means that switching to veggie sources would probably negate the effects of the regime by introducing too much carbohydrate. Plus, palm oil is also high in cholesterol - and I cant imagine sitting down to a glass full of any kind of oil, vegetarian or otherwise - wheras animal sources (e.g. meat, butter, cream) are all naturally full of fat and therefore full of flavour, there don't seem to be many vegetarian equivalents without the added carbohydrate burden.
So although switching to veggie fats might be better, I think it is the protein sources which would scupper your efforts in this area.
But then again, I am only guessing - why not give it a go and let us know your results? I would be really interested to find out how you get on.
Becci
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 20 November 2007 02:42 pm |
|
I think that for some people (who are carb-sensitive) a low-carb diet works better. Please remember that not everyone is carb-sensitive. You may have seen words like insulin-resistant or glucose-intolerant that people use interchangably with carb-sensitive.
Putting it another way, if you're not carb-sensitive, then it might not work Fnoticably better than any better than any other diet with the same number of calories.
Also it can be more effective if you are already very lean and trying to shed the last 5lb.
The dangers of excluding entire food groups become less of an issue if you interrupt low-carbing with an ocassional "high carb day".
For very low carb vegeterian sources of protein, try cooked mushrooms and frozen spinach. Admittadly you'll be having to east vast quantities of these. I believe for mushrooms the figure is 10% of calories.
[However this is less of an issue for me because I don't have "ketogenic" as my objective: as log as it is "moderate carb" (limit carbs to 100g per day) I'm fine. Therefore TVP (mine is 40% of calories from carbs) can play a role.]
One of the things that ticks me off about the diseaseproof.com blog [it isn't actually written by Dr Fuhrman] is that every time that a "low carb" diet is mentioned, they immediately knee-jerk-react by talking about saturated fat. Sure, I agree, most people will do "low carb" by eating large amounts of animal products, but this certainly does not apply to me.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 20 November 2007 03:32 pm |
|
I see exactly what you are saying, Nir, but if you were to try to follow an Atkins type "avoid carbs at all costs" vegetarian diet, all those sources you mention (spinach, mushrooms, TVP) all have inherent in their make up a level of carbohydrate which is significant.
In order to acheive the massive ketone levels (tht is in order to force your body to burn the fat, basically in the absence of carbohydrate -which is the preferred fuel of the body system) you need to have very little or no carbohydrate in your body (which includes the glycogen levels in the liver being depleted). Remember, eating little or no carbohydrate reduces the body's ability to burn dietary oil or fats - but only in the absence of carbs. Eating massive amounts of vegetables in search of high protein levels will also cause you to ingest significant levels of carbohydrates - which will be stored as glycogen in the liver, or will be burned in place of the fat which you wish to burn. Whether stored or burned, the presence of carbs will enable the body to burn the dietary fats, and your whole rationale for following this slightly odd regime goes down the gurgler.
Nir wrote:
[However this is less of an issue for me because I don't have "ketogenic" as my objective: as log as it is "moderate carb" (limit carbs to 100g per day) I'm fine. Therefore TVP (mine is 40% of calories from carbs) can play a role.]
With respect, Nir, if you are trying to lose weight then you are trying to be ketogenic. All fat burned in the body (not dietary fat, but body fat) when burned or accessed as fuel for energy, releases ketones as part of the chemical process of energy release. If you are losing weight, you are ketogenic. If you are trying to reduce your body fat levels, you are attempting to become ketogenic.
Becci
Last edited on 25 November 2007 08:19 am by Ohm
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 20 November 2007 03:50 pm |
|
lipolysis/ketosis is a fat-burning state you reach when limiting carbs to around 20g-50g per day [according to Atkins New Diet Revolution]. Why, how low did you think carbs have to go for that?
100g of cooked mushrooms provide 13 kcal, 1.8g protein, 0.4g carbs, 0.5g fat. Therefore, 2000g of cooked mushrooms provide 260 kcal, 36g protein, 8.0g carb, 10.0g fat.
Let's say you also ate some brazil nuts. 100g provides 682 kcal, 14.1g protein, 3.1g carb, 68.2g fat. So 200g provides 1364 kcal, 28.2g protein, 6.2g carbs, 136.4g fat.
Altogether: 1624 kcal, 64.2g protein, 14.2g carbs, 146.4g fat.
Becci, I trust you agree that 14.2g is "low-carb" enough, and hopefully you agree that mushrooms and brazil nuts both qualify as "vegeterian". This is only an example but it does show you can eat a ketogenic vegan diet.
|
suenos
Moderator
|
Posted: 20 November 2007 05:07 pm |
|
Becci:
It's really common for people to confuse what they've heard/read about Atkins with what is actually involved in following Atkins the way it was intended. So, as someone who followed Atkins to the letter for the first 3-4 months of my own weight loss, I just thought I'd point out that in reality Atkins is not an "avoid carbs at all costs" diet...if you are curious what foods were consumed it's listed in excruciating detail in my diary - note that not a single day went by without veggie intake: spinach, mushrooms, broccoli, bok choy, etc....and I remained in ketosis from the induction period (20g carbs daily) right up until I hit exceeded 60g carbs daily.
I'm also not sure it's quite accurate to state that "if you are trying to lose weight then you are trying to be ketogenic.....and if you are losing weight you are ketogenic". I understand what you mean, but it might be a wee bit of an oversimplication/mistatement.
Yes, ketosis can happen when you are dieting - but only if your diet is based on a starvation level deficit.....because ketosis is simply what your body does to protect itself from starving to death. But creating a modest calorie deficit sufficient to lose weight does not automatically induce ketosis.....and a ketogenic diet, or even a quasi-ketogenic diet induces ketosis by tricking your body into thinking it's starving by keeping carbohydrates so low that you experience ketosis.
to the original poster: just IMO I really wouldn't reccomend following the ketogenic diet for epilepsy control (which is not the same type of eating recommended in more traditional low carb diets, a la Atkins, Sugar Busters, etc.).....that particular diet is deliberately designed to be very, very high in fat (something like up to 75% of intake can come from fat) and limits protein as well as carbohydrates...hence the "mayo on lettuce" type meals Doug mentioned. It really is intended to address a specific medical issue and might be unnecessarily harmful to follow stictly as a weight loss plan.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 21 November 2007 09:49 am |
|
Suenos:
Ketosis is the name given to the process whereby certain waste products are released when fat is burned - it is the process which occurs whenever fat is burned. If you are losing fat, you are in ketosis. It does happen when you are starving, but it happens any time that your body accesses stored body fat for use as energy.
To be ketogenic means to be producing ketones. Therefore it is entirely accurate to say that if you are losing weight you are ketogenic (so long as the weight you are losing is fat).
I studied the Atkins style diet - proffessionally. If you were eating lots of veggies, then you were doing it wrong. Veggies are carbs and Dr Atkins, now deceased (!), advocated avoiding carbs as far as you could. Read some of his papers if you don't believe me. He wrote for the AMA Journal regularly for a significant period of time.
And BTW: epilepsy treated by ketosis? I think this may be an urban myth? What kind of epilepsy? What kind of seizures? Wht origin do the seizures have? What is the locus of the kind of sei\ures releived by ketosis?
|
suenos
Moderator
|
Posted: 21 November 2007 12:53 pm |
|
Becci:
To be ketogenic means to be producing ketones. Therefore it is entirely accurate to say that if you are losing weight you are ketogenic (so long as the weight you are losing is fat).
Um, sorry, but no. As you probably already know, the body naturally shifts between burning carbs and burning fats for fuel depending on activity... when I did my run this morning it was a series of sprints during which my body was burning primarily carbs for fuel - sitting here now typing this, my body is primarily burning fat for fuel. Because I drowned in a vat of popcorn last week, I'm currently slightly reducing my food take so (hopefully) some of that fuel being burned is stored fat and I will be one pound lighter next week - but, simply because I am on a lowered food intake and burning stored fat, it would be incorrect to say that that I am in ketoisis. Yes, ketones are always produced as a by product of fatty acid conversion, but no, a state of ketosis (which is a specific metabolic state) is not always the result of this process. BTW, the same ketone body (acetone) that's excreted via urine duirng ketosis, is also released through exhalation - causing that distinct breath odor Nevd referrred to in an earlier post.
Semantics are a lovely thing - but can often cloud a perfectly simply issue.
I studied the Atkins style diet - professionally. If you were eating lots of veggies, then you were doing it wrong.
Again, I followed the exact food plan as outlined in the book written by Dr. Atkins - not sure how that can be "wrong"...as Nir pointed out in an earlier post, there are veggie sources (plus berries) than are relatively low in carbohydrates (think dark green). Additionally, when accounting for carb intake on the Atkins diet fiber is subtracted from carb total and only the "net carbs" are calculated. Between 20g-60g of (net) carbs a day, I produced enough excess ketone bodies in my urine to be able to measure when I was in ketosis. BTW, not sure what what (if any) relevance it has - except to his family- that Dr. Atkins is "deceased(!)".....don't we all die at sometime(?!)
And BTW: epilepsy treated by ketosis? I think this may be an urban myth? What kind of epilepsy? What kind of seizures? What origin do the seizures have? What is the locus of the kind of semiures releived by ketosis?
There is a specific ketogenic diet for the treatment of epileptic seizures (especially in children); I believe it was first developed at John Hopkins Hospital and I know it has been utilized by the medical profession for several decades - with a high success rate - so, far from being an urban myth. I won't go into any more detail about it because it is not meant to be a weight loss method. However, anyone dealing with that particular problem can find more information about it via the Epilepsy Foundation.
Last edited on 21 November 2007 01:06 pm by suenos
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 21 November 2007 01:04 pm |
|
Suenos: I shall agree to disagree. When you have the same qualifications and experience as me, come back to me and we will see if there is anything to argue about. Semantics are great when it comes to quibbling. I'm not quibbling.
Ketosis can be researched without looking at this thread. I shall not reply again, so if you come back to have the last word, you will be shouting in the wind. Please beware of spreading misconceptions in the form of pseudo science. it can be dangerous.
|
suenos
Moderator
|
Posted: 21 November 2007 01:14 pm |
|
I doubt the "last word" will be mine...as this is an open forum with several intelligent members - some of whom may wish to add their own experience/perspective to the topic at hand.
If there is a single thing I've said that's incorrect and anyone would care to point me in an alternate direction, please feel free...I believe that very, very few "facts" are carved in stone and I like to keep an open mind - it allows room for new knowledge to enter.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 21 November 2007 01:44 pm |
|
Becci, I think the most authoratative source for describing the Atkins diet as he expected it to be followed are the books he used to convey it to the public (such as "Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution" which I currently have out of the library and which I had re-read this summer, having originally read it in early 2004).
I don't know if studying the Atkins diet professionally involved using any of his books as a source [you mentioned papers above] but most of Atkins followers would have (hopefully) read his book and are unlikely to have read any scientific papers he had produced.
On the subject of vegetables, Dr Atkins has produced a "carbohydrate pyramid", and the most encouraged type of carbs are indeed vegetables
|
nevd
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 21 November 2007 06:31 pm |
|
Wow, this thread's heated up while I've been away!
Thought I'd just add that, although it was a few years ago when I read it, the result of the only research done into high-fat/low-carbs regime in controlled conditions (that is, eliminating self-reporting of food intake) concluded that less calories were eaten because of satiety and that was the only reason that could be discovered as to why it worked.
As I mentioned, it worked for me but I wouldn't look forward to doing it again. Short-terrm kick-start - maybe; diet for life - no, no, no.
And, as it always says in the small print, you should check it out with your doc, first... just in case there are any contra-indications.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 08:17 am |
|
Um, actually, Suenos has been sending me some quite nasty PMs, apparently on behalf of Nir. In one of the posts up there I referred to the Atkins style regime as "a slightly odd regime" (I'll go back and add some bold for emphasis if anyone wants to have a look) and has taken offence on Nir's behalf.
Furthermore, the aggressive, although not offensive posts she posted above are apparently (she claims) entirely prompted by the fact that I was attacking Nir - I wasn't! If this is the case, then I would strongly suggest that you carefully reread what she has written: anger and being affronted is rarely conducive to careful and accurate recall of data or facts.
Just in case anyone else is under the misconception that I am having a go at Nir (which I'm not - and I'm pretty sure Nir would confirm that he understands that and is not offended) I was referring to the Atkins as "slightly odd" and the "down the gurgler" reference referred to the opinion that eating a vegetarian version of the Atkins regime would be counterproductive as the inherent carbohydrate levels in the vegetable matter would counteract and negate the intended effect of eating the high protein veggies.
I count Nir as a friend. I also regard him as very individual, and he has various idiosyncracies for which I am in no place to judge him and would not attempt to do so. As a friend and fellow moderator, I admire him. As a human being I respect him. As a person struggling to control his relationship with food I condone his success and admire his adhesion to what he has found works. And I think he knows this. He doesn't need anyone having a go at me on his behalf. He is quite capable of fightinghis own battles - and if and when we disagree we are both quite open about it here in the forums without being rude to eachother or taking umbridge.
Nir? I know how carefully you read these threads, so I am sure that you will not have misunderstood, but if you did, please don't be offended. You know I have respect for your level of self-education regarding food and diet and exercise. Your acheivements in conquering your obsessive overeating and in adhering to your fitness regime are astounding - and I was describing the Atkins as "slightly odd" not you or your eating regime - although you are usually the first person to acknowledge that your eating regime is unusual, as you say IT WORKS FOR YOU - and that is all that matters. Actually, as you know, it also works for those other people on that website you sent me, so you aren't alone, my friend.
Becci
PS I may be unwise in posting this, but currently, I don't give a flying ferret!
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 10:02 am |
|
Having reviewed the topic it still strikes me that the debate is not very sophisticated.
1) I don't like this technique of redefining the words and terms which are in common usage [specifically here, 'ketogenic diet' and 'in ketosis'] because it makes it difficult to discuss the thing we are talking about (think of it as the low-carb way of eating that consistently turns your ketosis strips into a purple colour)
2) Debating about whether the Atkins diet is how it is portrayed in the media or is commonly thought of by lay people, as compared with the specific instructions layed down by Dr Atkins in his various publications. Come on, what is the point of this debate - using this 'technique' you can say that Atkins is whatever you want it to be.
3) And finally, talking about the roles that vegetables can play in a very low carb diet - it is just a numbers game, surely it is an easy to settle matter, rather than an open question. (Semantics again: most vegetables are high-carb, but some are low-carb and are useful for constructing such a diet).
[and if anyone is wondering what Becci is saying towards the end of her reply, I referred her to the website of Greysheeters Anonymous, a fellowship based around the concept of recovering from compusive over-eating by weighing and measuring meals - usually 4 oz of animal protein and a few cups of vegtables per meal.]
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 10:29 am |
|
Yes, Nir, I can agree with the gist of what you say - but if carb is the key (or the stumbling block - debatable even no), even low carb veggies (e.g. spinach) still contain carbohydrates - and therefore cannot be eaten with alacrity if you want to maintain yourself within the confines of the prescribed programme/regime. Can you concede that?
But yes, the level of debate is somewhat inferior (on my part), to say the least. And lets, face it - for many people it works. I believe that one of the biggest problems with this program was that of sustainability. Largely, people gave up becuse of the "lazer breath", constipation and also because they just got sick of the regime (craved carbs) - or at elast, that is what our participants told us. We didn't publish - mainly because there arose a few issues which may have caused problems in the public domain (not my decision - just the ethics committees call).
But for those in need of a quick fix, it certainly does enable a lot of people to lose a fair amount of weight quite quickly - so I guess it has its merits.
Just a thought: DOug posted up there that he had a seizure whilst following this regime. And yet it has also been mentioned that this regime can be used as a dietary therapy for epilepsy? I wonder if the poster meant the Atkins or just a dietary regime which produced ketosis? Especially in the light of the implication that the Atkins type regime caused a seizure in Doug (or am I reading it wrong? Was the diet the cause of the seizure? Interesting.)
Becci
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 11:17 am |
|
To answer your spinach question, I am opening my beaten-up copy of "collins gem calorie counter" where 100g of "SPINACH, FROZEN, BOILED" has the following properties: 21 kcal, 3.1g protein, 0.5g carb, 0.8g fat, 2.1g fibre. Therefore, calorie distribution is approximately 60% protein, 10% fat, 30% fat. That is very low-carb. You could easily eat 2 kilos of that and only contribute 10g of carbohydrates to your total. Recalling that "Atkins Induction", the lowest-carb phase of Atkins, calls for a maximum of 20g of carbs per day, we still have 10g of carbs to use with other foods as we please. [and if you're shooting for a vegan day, have the rest of the calories from olives, avocados, nuts and seeds]. Surely no-one can say they feel short-changed on quantities after eating 2 kilos of spinach.
What I will concede is not that it is difficult to do a vegan Atkins, but that it involves eating more food than some people think of as normal, and the selection is limited to a handful of vegetables which will lead to issues with compliance after a while.
Upon reflection, this trick of eating lots of mushrooms and/or spinach, both of which are VERY LOW CARB vegetables, probably requires a certain inventiveness and ingenuity (and some aptitude for numbers!) which means that it probably has not occured to the Average person who followed Atkins -- who would have either limited themselves to the 3 cups of vegetables outlined in the induction chapter of the book, or worse, if they were too lazy to read the book, perhaps just followed their guess of what the Atkins diet involved based on coverage in the popular media. By the way I started Atkins in October or November of 2003, but at that point and for about one week I was just doing it based on what I thought it was having watched a 30 minute TV program about it. When I started reading the book and website I realised that in fact I had not followed the Atkins diet at all during that first week. Doh.
About the research project you were involved with (that you are describing above), sounds intersting. I am curious about the protocol: were the participants given the Atkins book and sent on their way -- or were they given a "class", instructed on what following the Atkins diet would entail - or did you design specific menus for them based on Atkins principles - or did you feed them specific meals in a hospital setting?
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 11:44 am |
|
I am not the sole author of the final (unpublished) report, so I don't have the sole copyright, but I can share some of the details without upsettingthe apple cart, I think.
We advertised for participants in UK slimming magasines - it was a few years ago and the internet, although significant, was not considered a suitable access interface at that time. There was psychometric testing of participants and allocation to one of three groups: atkins, counting calories and non dieting (control). We had around 600 participants, from memory.
There were criteria for admission to the study (age, health, having read the book - there were others but I can't remember exactly any more). Obviously, psychopathology excluded people from participation for fear of disordered eating behaviour skewing our results. We tried to ensure participant groups were matched as to age, weight, sex, gender, lifestyles, etc.
Over 2 years we looked at who persevered with their diet regime and their reasons for continuing, or their reasons for giving up. Calorie counter lost most weight (it seems, because their regime was the most sustainable) and were least likely to fall by the wayside. Atkins lost weight fastest, but were most likely to give up (citing bad breath, constipation and craving carbs) andalso most likely to regain weight lost since the study began. The control group were interesting, exactly half lost weight and exactly half gained weight.
Compared, using chi square (3x2), the males lost more than the women (with Atkins group men doingbest overall in % terms of weight loss) and were better at keeping it off, but the male participants were really hard to find - men expressed a fear that people would find out that they were dieting and preferred to think of themselves as "trying to get into shape" rather than "dieting" - so a bigger participant pool would have been better all round.
So, that's the study in a nutshell, we had lots of nice significant stats - but you have to be careful about what you publish, and the atmosphere at that time around dieting and weight loss (it was just after Diana's death) was fraught - so the powers that be thought that some of our findings (sorry, it would be unethical to disclose them here) were not suitable to be put into the public arena at the time - so we got shelved. Bummer.
Becci
|
suenos
Moderator
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 02:02 pm |
|
Seriously, I am done with this....not the subject at hand, which can be interesting, but all the personal nonsense around it. I totally fail to see how that is useful, productive or helpful to any single person on this planet....I'm ticked off at myself for even bothering to make this response - sadly I am not a big enough person to just let the "Suenos has been sending me some nasty pm's" remark just lie.
Reality check number one: I have not been sending Becci "some quite nasty PMs, apparently on behalf of Nir".....she knows this, I know this, and as I have forwarded Nir some of the pms in question, he knows this as well. Becci pm'd me, I responded with an honest (not sugar coated) reply, she pm'd again, I replied, she pm'd me yet again..and again...and I finally responded saying, in essence, stop $%^%# pm'ing me. And, frankly, that's where it should have stood.
Reality check number two. If you want to have an open, frank discussion about something, don't initiate it via pm and then, when you don't like the opinions expressed, make a post in open forum complaining about how someone is sending you "nasty pm's".
Reality check number three: Since Becci, for whatever reason, perhaps because I decline to read or respond to any further pms, chose to continue to drag this nonsense out and misconstrue what I said in a pm, I am making a clarification for inquiring minds: stripped down to basics, what I said (via pm where it should have stayed) is that I think it is insensitive & judgmental to call someone's way of eating "odd" in this particular environment because most people reading these forums - whether they actively post or not - are struggling with food issues in one way or another and probably get that sort of thing quite enough from friends/family members.
|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 02:20 pm |
|
EWr, you have been send in mne some nasty PMs and I stil have them if anyone wants to see them.
But I wont be aroudn on here because I have had enough of all this "you can't say that, I know, I'm right" crud! Keep it, Suenos, and may you be very happy with it. It wont keep you warm at night and it wont pay your bills.
Everyone else, be careful, sights like this where you get urban myths put forward alongside real and genuine methods of weight loss can make it difficult to distinguish between the two.
|
suenos
Moderator
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 03:08 pm |
|
No, my boyfriend does a good job on the first  (plus I live in Florida) and my job does the second quite nicely.....thanks for the concern.
Seriously, Becci...what you consider "nasty" I consider a blunt, honest expression of my opinion in what I mistakenly assumed was a one-on-one setting - you stated that I took exception to you based on your "informed status" and I responded by frankly telling you exactly what I took exception to - and your last post is a perfect example of what I was talking about......I have a good deal of frustration in trying to get across to you that a difference in opinion on any given subject matter is simply that - a difference of opinion. And while I don't always think I am 100% right I do firmly reserve the right to not always agree with you no matter how often you shout "I'm a psychologist!"
As I have said to you, more than once, we are two very different women and will not always see the same thing in the same way. I look and see apples, you look and see oranges, someone else may come along and see fruit salad. And so what? At the end of the day we both have the same difficult to achieve objective: to find our individual paths to sustained weight loss in a physically/mentally/emotionally healthy manner. If, along the way, you can impart information that helps someone else do the same - great. If I can do the same - great. It does not, and should not, have to be either/or.
I truly don't know what else to say.
|
Current time is 03:12 am | |
|
|
|
