Actually it is not. It is a way to get rid of fat. It is just not a great diet for long periods of time.
But then, if you'd read the book, you would know that Atkins recommend that you stay on the wacky no carb part for a short time and then gradually re-introduce them.
The unfortunate reality that most people don't want to face is that if you want to keep that svelte waistline, it is a 24/7 job. Period. Unless you are like Eugene and can eat a candy store every day and not gain a pound (and yes, Eugene, I promise you that will not be the case when you are 40), or on serious drugs, you have to "just say no" pretty much for the rest of your life and get your butt off the sofa.
<strong>(and yes, Eugene, I promise you that will not be the case when you are 40)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know. I have a friend that's mid thirties and he's showing no signs of gaining weight despite the fact that he get lunch at Gold Coast Dogs and get dinner at Burito Hut #12.
What? You even lie more than us </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hah! Either way that says something about American morals.
Speaking of which, is there something wrong with me for finding this story amusing? I do feel bad for the guy, but geez, a furniture truck!! (this is on topic by the way)
Those of you who don't have or have never had a weight problem need to butt out. I have been up and down for years. I have tried exercise, dieting in many different ways, etc.
I have found many things that work...running, eating certain types of food, etc. The bottom line is that unless you have a quick metabolism (like my brother) then you have to stick to regimen MOST of the time...but not always.
We do, as Americans, have sedentary (sp?) life styles. We do eat too much fat and calories....but, those of you bitching for people to "get off their fat asses and do something" may not have it quite right. Many people in this country exercise and eat right and are still fat....that is genetics my friend. Furthermore, calories and fat affect my metabolism and body much differently than, as mentioned, my brother. If I exercise the same amount and eat the same things he does, I WILL gain weight....that is just a difference in our bodies.
I started slim fast once a day for lunch and it has worked great. I eat a bananna and drink coffee for breakfast, have my slim fast for lunch, then eat more liberally at dinner. I have avoided dessert most nights, but not all. I've lost about 10 pds in two weeks.....I think I'll stick with it..
I saw a special on TeeVee about mummies. There was one in China so well preserved they were able to do an autopsy. The woman died of a heart attack. She was fat too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Were the mummies from an agrarian population or from a population of people who were meat eaters?
Another book , "Protein Power" by Dr. Michael Eades and Dr. Mary Dan Eades states that the Egyptian mummies suffered from tooth decay, atherlosclerosis, and, by virtue of their large skin folds, they were fat. They were an agrarian society (Carbohydrate eaters)... just like we're being told that we should be... interestingly enough by people LIKE Oprah Winfrey (She of the Texas Cattle Trial a while back). Carbs are working for her!
In another part of 'Protein Power", there is mention of a study by a Claire M. Cassidy, Ph.D., an Anthropologist. Her study compares two populations of people who lived in what is now Kentucky. The first population was a tribe of Indians who were hunter-gatherers (predominantly meat eaters) who enjoyed good health. The second population, closer to us in time, was a farming community. The skeletal remains of each population have results consistent with what I've experienced personally with my experiences with both Carbo diets and with the Atkins/Protein predominanty diet. Carbo populations are unhealthy. Protein populations are healthy.
As for my statement about heart attacks, let me back up a bit.
I stated that there were no heart attacks in the 19th century. That wasn't just a simplification. I got it wrong. Let me restate the point that I was trying to make.
In 1900, Heart Disease wasn't an epidemic. (i.e., there were deaths due to heart disease.)
In 2000, Heart Disease IS an epidemic.
What's changed between then and now? Our diet has changed.
I thought that this was all crap until I tried the Atkins diet, controlled what I ate, introduced certain foods and monitored the physical, mental and behavioral effects. I'll stick to Atkins and eat all the semi-cooked meat and vitamin supplements that I can find.
You don't wanna give up or reduce carbs? Wanna keep your protein and fats down? Oakalee-doakalee. Please, go ahead and gorge yourself... and your arteries. Have a nice trip.
I'm 5'11", 220 lbs. What's my recipe for success? I eat plenty of junk food and don't exercise, and that's pretty much been my routine for about five years. It's getting annoying, and I'm getting running shoes.
[quote]We do, as Americans, have sedentary (sp?) life styles. We do eat too much fat and calories....but, those of you bitching for people to "get off their fat asses and do something" may not have it quite right. Many people in this country exercise and eat right and are still fat....that is genetics my friend. Furthermore, calories and fat affect my metabolism and body much differently than, as mentioned, my brother. If I exercise the same amount and eat the same things he does, I WILL gain weight....that is just a difference in our bodies. <hr></blockquote>
sorry man, but i think that's just total crap. now the part about you and your brother is probably true. that's not the point. so he can take in 3,000 calories a day and not bat an eye, that doesn't mean that everyone should. i really don't get this arguement of genetics. that's total bullshit. if you control the amount of calories you take in, you cannot gain weight, regardless of genetics. (so we can't all eat like a horse, so what. everyone's different)
sorry, it's just not possible. if you burn 2,000 calories a day, and you take in 3,000, you'll gain weight. if you burn 2,000 and take in 1,900, you'll lose weight. end of story. you cannot gain weight from something that has no caloric value. therefore, you can't gain weight if you don't take in more calories than you burn. this is where exercise comes in.
most poeple like to eat 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day. we eat like total crap. the only way to make up for this is to exercise. point is, if you were willing to change your eating habits, you wouldn't gain weight, whether you exercised or not. but it's damn hard to restrict yourself to a lower caloric intake.
Some people would be in pain if they ate only what they had to to maintain a balance of what the burn. Think about it. Something as tiny as a Hostess cupcake probably has nearly 300 calories. I can eat about a half dozen of those in one sitting. The Hostess pies usually have 500+ calories. It's pretty damn easy tallying up calories. A Sprite has 140 calories.
You know how many calories are in a bag of peanuts?
Why don't you buy the genetics stuff? I can tell you I'm much happier that I can eat whatever I want whenever I want. 2000 calorie diets as an average doesn't mean the body consumes 2000 calories. There's a lot of waste...waste full of energy. Perhaps fatter people are much more efficient at converting food to stored energy (fat.)
---
Since I come from a family of physicians, I know the high-protein diet is in...and largely works. So the nay-sayers in this thread can stop arguing with Aries.
Eugene, what i'm saying is that there is no one out there who can't help but get fat. (there are probably .1% of the population with messed up thyriods, i'll dicount them)
what i'm talking about are people who look at a guy in college playing volleyball, soccer and lacrosse, and saying it's not fair that they can't eat like him, 'cause it's genetics.
it's a load of bull. as for the hostess cupcake example, that's perfect. if you want to feel like you've had some sustinence, maybe hostess cupcakes aren't the way to go. i don't think that anyone (excluding the aformentioned) can get fat on a 2,000 calorie a day diet.
a comparison for you.
1 cup of uncooked rice has 200 calories. cooked, that's a meal.
1 sprite (as you mentioned) has 140.
which is better for you? now, people will drink a 64oz. pop with their burger and fries, and they're instantly over 2,000 calories.
fact is, if that was all you ate in a day, you wouldn't starve. (if it were 2,000, not sure about that)
you only need 2,000 (unless you doing a lot of active stuff) in a day. if you cram 2,000+ into one meal, you're going to probably feel hungery later in the day, but you don't actually need to eat. you just want to eat.
if someone can come in here and explain how anyone could possibly gain weight by taking in less calories than they burn, i'll apologize and never bring up the subject again.
it is a non issue that there are individuals that can eat grotesque amounts of food and not gain weight. everyone has slight differences, i'll agree to that. that doesn't mean that some people are geneticaly predetermined to get fat. is it easier for them to put on weight, yes. is in unavoidable, no. they'll only get fat if they eat more than they need to. period
10 cups of rice a day would be more food (volume wise) than the average person can eat in a day, but is at 2,000 calories. just stay away from the mayo and bacon sandwhiches if volume of food intake is an issue.
Comments
My friend and I are both vegans.
My friend exercises regularly yet is over 1.5 times my weight. We pretty much eat the same types of foods, but I don't exercise as much as I should.
Oh and that extra 1.5x is certainly not muscle!
me: 120
friend: 180
<strong>
Actually, I just read a report that Americans claim to have sex more frequently and with more partners then any other country in the world.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? You even lie more than us
<strong>Absolute, unadulterated, unscientific, Oprah-book-club hooey.
Actually it is not. It is a way to get rid of fat. It is just not a great diet for long periods of time.
But then, if you'd read the book, you would know that Atkins recommend that you stay on the wacky no carb part for a short time and then gradually re-introduce them.
The unfortunate reality that most people don't want to face is that if you want to keep that svelte waistline, it is a 24/7 job. Period. Unless you are like Eugene and can eat a candy store every day and not gain a pound (and yes, Eugene, I promise you that will not be the case when you are 40), or on serious drugs, you have to "just say no" pretty much for the rest of your life and get your butt off the sofa.
Sucks, doesn't it?
The only way for me to get thin would be to join the Army or go to one of the military academies where there's no choice: you run around ALL the time.
<strong>(and yes, Eugene, I promise you that will not be the case when you are 40)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know. I have a friend that's mid thirties and he's showing no signs of gaining weight despite the fact that he get lunch at Gold Coast Dogs and get dinner at Burito Hut #12.
<strong>
What? You even lie more than us
Hah! Either way that says something about American morals.
Speaking of which, is there something wrong with me for finding this story amusing? I do feel bad for the guy, but geez, a furniture truck!! (this is on topic by the way)
<a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20011210/us/foster_father_weight_1.html"; target="_blank">http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20011210/us/foster_father_weight_1.html</a>;
BTW, I eat lots and don't gain any weight. I'm 5'11 and 145 or so lbs. Actually I was 150 after eating all that KFC a couple nights ago
[edit: spelled weight as wait :eek: ]
[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]</p>
its all too easy.
I have found many things that work...running, eating certain types of food, etc. The bottom line is that unless you have a quick metabolism (like my brother) then you have to stick to regimen MOST of the time...but not always.
We do, as Americans, have sedentary (sp?) life styles. We do eat too much fat and calories....but, those of you bitching for people to "get off their fat asses and do something" may not have it quite right. Many people in this country exercise and eat right and are still fat....that is genetics my friend. Furthermore, calories and fat affect my metabolism and body much differently than, as mentioned, my brother. If I exercise the same amount and eat the same things he does, I WILL gain weight....that is just a difference in our bodies.
I started slim fast once a day for lunch and it has worked great. I eat a bananna and drink coffee for breakfast, have my slim fast for lunch, then eat more liberally at dinner. I have avoided dessert most nights, but not all. I've lost about 10 pds in two weeks.....I think I'll stick with it..
<strong>Absolute, unadulterated, unscientific, Oprah-book-club hooey.
Have you read the Atkins diet book?
What specific part didn't you agree with? Why?
<strong>
I saw a special on TeeVee about mummies. There was one in China so well preserved they were able to do an autopsy. The woman died of a heart attack. She was fat too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Were the mummies from an agrarian population or from a population of people who were meat eaters?
Another book , "Protein Power" by Dr. Michael Eades and Dr. Mary Dan Eades states that the Egyptian mummies suffered from tooth decay, atherlosclerosis, and, by virtue of their large skin folds, they were fat. They were an agrarian society (Carbohydrate eaters)... just like we're being told that we should be... interestingly enough by people LIKE Oprah Winfrey (She of the Texas Cattle Trial a while back). Carbs are working for her!
In another part of 'Protein Power", there is mention of a study by a Claire M. Cassidy, Ph.D., an Anthropologist. Her study compares two populations of people who lived in what is now Kentucky. The first population was a tribe of Indians who were hunter-gatherers (predominantly meat eaters) who enjoyed good health. The second population, closer to us in time, was a farming community. The skeletal remains of each population have results consistent with what I've experienced personally with my experiences with both Carbo diets and with the Atkins/Protein predominanty diet. Carbo populations are unhealthy. Protein populations are healthy.
As for my statement about heart attacks, let me back up a bit.
I stated that there were no heart attacks in the 19th century. That wasn't just a simplification. I got it wrong. Let me restate the point that I was trying to make.
In 1900, Heart Disease wasn't an epidemic. (i.e., there were deaths due to heart disease.)
In 2000, Heart Disease IS an epidemic.
What's changed between then and now? Our diet has changed.
I thought that this was all crap until I tried the Atkins diet, controlled what I ate, introduced certain foods and monitored the physical, mental and behavioral effects. I'll stick to Atkins and eat all the semi-cooked meat and vitamin supplements that I can find.
You don't wanna give up or reduce carbs? Wanna keep your protein and fats down? Oakalee-doakalee. Please, go ahead and gorge yourself... and your arteries. Have a nice trip.
sorry man, but i think that's just total crap. now the part about you and your brother is probably true. that's not the point. so he can take in 3,000 calories a day and not bat an eye, that doesn't mean that everyone should. i really don't get this arguement of genetics. that's total bullshit. if you control the amount of calories you take in, you cannot gain weight, regardless of genetics. (so we can't all eat like a horse, so what. everyone's different)
sorry, it's just not possible. if you burn 2,000 calories a day, and you take in 3,000, you'll gain weight. if you burn 2,000 and take in 1,900, you'll lose weight. end of story. you cannot gain weight from something that has no caloric value. therefore, you can't gain weight if you don't take in more calories than you burn. this is where exercise comes in.
most poeple like to eat 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day. we eat like total crap. the only way to make up for this is to exercise. point is, if you were willing to change your eating habits, you wouldn't gain weight, whether you exercised or not. but it's damn hard to restrict yourself to a lower caloric intake.
at least, that's my opinion.
-alcimedes
it's a secret weapon we are working on.
we could tell you about it ...but you know what we would have to do to you then.
You know how many calories are in a bag of peanuts?
Why don't you buy the genetics stuff? I can tell you I'm much happier that I can eat whatever I want whenever I want. 2000 calorie diets as an average doesn't mean the body consumes 2000 calories. There's a lot of waste...waste full of energy. Perhaps fatter people are much more efficient at converting food to stored energy (fat.)
---
Since I come from a family of physicians, I know the high-protein diet is in...and largely works. So the nay-sayers in this thread can stop arguing with Aries.
---
As for getting back to the original topic.
Deep fried Three Musketeers anyone?
<a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/p/ap/20011211/us/apyaholine1_minnesot_0062l.html"; target="_blank">http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/p/ap/20011211/us/apyaholine1_minnesot_0062l.html</a>;
what i'm talking about are people who look at a guy in college playing volleyball, soccer and lacrosse, and saying it's not fair that they can't eat like him, 'cause it's genetics.
it's a load of bull. as for the hostess cupcake example, that's perfect. if you want to feel like you've had some sustinence, maybe hostess cupcakes aren't the way to go. i don't think that anyone (excluding the aformentioned) can get fat on a 2,000 calorie a day diet.
a comparison for you.
1 cup of uncooked rice has 200 calories. cooked, that's a meal.
1 sprite (as you mentioned) has 140.
which is better for you? now, people will drink a 64oz. pop with their burger and fries, and they're instantly over 2,000 calories.
fact is, if that was all you ate in a day, you wouldn't starve. (if it were 2,000, not sure about that)
you only need 2,000 (unless you doing a lot of active stuff) in a day. if you cram 2,000+ into one meal, you're going to probably feel hungery later in the day, but you don't actually need to eat. you just want to eat.
if someone can come in here and explain how anyone could possibly gain weight by taking in less calories than they burn, i'll apologize and never bring up the subject again.
it is a non issue that there are individuals that can eat grotesque amounts of food and not gain weight. everyone has slight differences, i'll agree to that. that doesn't mean that some people are geneticaly predetermined to get fat. is it easier for them to put on weight, yes. is in unavoidable, no. they'll only get fat if they eat more than they need to. period
10 cups of rice a day would be more food (volume wise) than the average person can eat in a day, but is at 2,000 calories. just stay away from the mayo and bacon sandwhiches if volume of food intake is an issue.
-alcimedes
I also like chocolate.
I also enjoy working with weights. I hate running. I am very bulky.
Thus, I am fat.
Once you get used to eating small amounts of food it actually gets kinda fun.
I used to be really chubby when I was in 6th grade or so but now I'm 5' 8" 125 lbs.