That reminds me. I know a guy who was positively obese, and was on the Atkins diet, or so he thought. He decided he just couldn't lose weight when it wasn't working for him. He was practically crying into his beer.
(Ok, I made up the last part, but he didn't realize his love of beer was getting in the way of weight loss.)
Well, the atkins diet can work very well if you mix it with some pretty basic exercise, and anything that makes people skinny makes me insanely happy. Why?
1) It's extremely hard to find clothes when you're a fit American. Everything is tailored for fatsos.
2) Fat people take up more space on any form of public transportation. . . Buses, Subways, Airplanes, you name it. Sitting between two lard buckets on the Washington-LA direct SUCKS.
3) I HATE cupholders in cars. Grrrrr.
Granted number 3 isn't going to go anywhere, I welcome the prospect of a slimmer population.
Well, the whole thing about the "low carb lifestyle" is that it only works for one simple reason. Those diets almost all call for high protein, protein takes longer to digest than simple carbs and complex carbs. If you eat a steak you are more filled than if you eat the same calorie containing Reeses Pieces pack. Yet, which one makes you feel more full and why? It's all because protein just takes longer to digest, therefor your apetite goes away for a longer period of time.
low carb stuff: people believe what mr atkins wrote.
"do as i say, not as i do".
he died being 6'1" and 250 lb.
Needless to say, lots of people are losing weight on low-carb diets. They're not necessarily eating healthy, but they're losing weight Weight loss is a good first step. It's a jumping off point for improved self-esteem, exercise, etc.
Also, the doctors in my family were recently talking about these diets, and the traditional concept of eating balanced amounts of fat, carbs and proteins *gasp* and just paying attention to the # of calories you take in. It's pretty much been assumed that all calories were created equal until now. That's the next big question.
atkins etc are trying to tell that the fat and obese EUROPEANS are nearly all in no fatr or low fat diet.
and those who eat more fat are thinner.
they forget that japanese are a lot thinner than europeans in media, and in japanese food under 10 % of calories come from fat.
so fat europeans eat low fat food, and .. japanese can't be applied to that rule.
personally, all fat europeans i know, eat a lot of a) junk food and generally b) food that is high in fat, such as junk food, fried food, all kinds of pastries, cakes, etc etc.
The processes of converting fats, proteins and carbs are not equal, but calories have always been calories. When you see "Calories from Fat" in the the Nutrition Facts info on food packaging, that's just telling you how much fat is in the product, not that it has different types of elemental calories.
The reason why fat makes you fat is because every gram of fat amounts to 9 calories vs 4 calories for both protein and carbohydrates.
The Atkins diet is all about making you feel full, and stuff like meat and other high protein foods do that better than starchy items like rice, grains, etc.
i cant understand how anyone who sold millions of dieting books could allow himself to be obese.
He didn't. After he fell and scrambled his brains, he gained 60 lbs. in the hospital on all the medications they put him on before he finally passed on. His wife refuted all these people's claims that he was a hypocrite.
My view on the whole low-carb thing is that it's really good for people who are very obese or have a hard time moving (ie. People who can't burn off those carbs). For most everyone else I think they're missing the point. Like others have said here, moderation is the key and exercise MUST be included in a fitness/diet plan. I think these fastos are just finding excuses to not get off their fat asses and do what it takes to REALLY lose weight.
My mom is the perfect example. She keeps trying every supplement/whatever under the sun to lose weight, but she's getting nowhere because she won't exercise.
It isn't rocket science, folks: Eating in moderation. Diet AND exercise.
Wow. Shocker, huh? Juicy! Ironic! Guess that shows him, huh!?
Dr. Robert Atkins, whose popular diet stresses protein-rich meat and cheese over carbohydrates, weighed 258 pounds at his death and had a history of heart disease, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
Wow, I guess his weight and heart disease must have been due to the diet, huh? Heh. You can feel the irony dripping like fat off a grilled cheeseburger, I'm tellin' ya.
Atkins died last April at age 72 after being injured in a fall on an icy street.
Oh, you mean he didn't die from being obese, or his heart condition? Oh well, he was *still* fat, and you just *know* his arteries were clogged solid, the old quack.
Before his death, he had suffered a heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing a report by the city medical examiner.
See? Heart problems! Gotta be that diet. What an idiot.
At 258 pounds, the 6-foot-tall Atkins would have qualified as obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's body-mass index calculator.
*258*?? Jesus, the guy was a walking fat globule! *snicker snicker snicker*
Diet is one potential factor in heart disease, but infections also can contribute to it.
Hunh? What's that got to do with anything? The guy was *huge*, the guy ate *fat*!
Stuart Trager, chairman of the Atkins Physicians Council in New York, told the Journal that Atkins' heart disease stemmed from cardiomyopathy, a condition thought to result from a viral infection.
So... his heart condition wasn't due to his diet, but due to an infection???
Oh well, the guy was still a tubbo. What a maroon! Ha!
Atkins' weight was due to bloating associated with his condition, and he had been much slimmer during most of his life, Trager said.
Wait... now you're saying that his weight likely due to *water*, and *not* fat, and had nothing to do with his diet? Well, that's just...
But he died of heart disease, right? No, wait, that was a fall on the ice.
But he was fat, right? No, he had water retention.
But he had massive heart disease, that's gotta be from the diet, right? No, an infection.
Then why on earth is this supposed to be news? Who could benefit from this?
The medical examiner's report was given to the Journal by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates vegetarianism. The medical examiner's office told the Journal that the report had been sent to the group in error.
So what's the headline got to do with anything again?
Slimy.
My grandfather bloated like that in his last years - he was mortified by it. May 2002 I flew back home for a 'last visit' because death was imminent. They tried a new medication as a last ditch effort, and he lost *60 lbs of water in 36 hrs*. That's a lot of catheter bags, folks. Sixty pounds. All water. All due to the congestive heart disease. From an infection. (Scarlet fever as a child, actually.)
Not diet.
There is no irony here, just a sad tale of an old man slipping on the ice and dying.
But that doesn't sell papers, or webclicks.
Slimy.
This isn't journalism, it's tabloid muckraking for the hell of it.
-------
Atkins wasn't obese, he had massive water retention from a heart condition that had nothing to do with diet, but instead an infection. (And, he gained 60 lbs of water while he was in a coma after his fall. At the time of his fall, he was just under 200.)
A doctor's vegetarian group with an axe to grind decided to start a smear campaign. I'm sorry to see you got suckered in. Worse, they were *doctors*... they *knew* what those medical reports meant, and they spun it the way they wanted to.
the whole no-carb thing is a joke. think about all the people that waste away their lives trying to eat all the "right" things, then end up dying at the same time as everyone else... bottom line: if youre unhealthy, eat right. if youre healthy, dont give in to all the bullshit.
The processes of converting fats, proteins and carbs are not equal, but calories have always been calories. When you see "Calories from Fat" in the the Nutrition Facts info on food packaging, that's just telling you how much fat is in the product, not that it has different types of elemental calories.
The reason why fat makes you fat is because every gram of fat amounts to 9 calories vs 4 calories for both protein and carbohydrates.
The Atkins diet is all about making you feel full, and stuff like meat and other high protein foods do that better than starchy items like rice, grains, etc.
I agree with the first part of your post, but I'm skeptical about the last paragraph.
This seems to be the fall-back position of the low-carbers. "OK, OK, you're right, carb calories don't really make you fatter. But they don't fill you up as much as good ol' meat." But that doesn't make sense. Bread and pasta are filling. I think what's going on with people who really do lose weight with Atkins is that they're restricting what they can eat, and so they simply eat less calories than before. All fad diets work exactly the same way: eat only cabbage, or melon, or X Y and Z, and you'll lose weight due to calorie restriction.
Because most people get the majority of their calories from breads and pastas, when you cut those back, you're cutting a significant portion of your calories back. The thing is, you should be getting the majority of your calories from those things.
Look at the food guide pyramid. Scientists came up with that, not book sellers. Sure, they have "use sparingly" for sweets. But all those supposedly bad things like bread and pasta form the basis of your diet. Of course if you cut down on the basis of your diet, you're going to lose weight.
This seems to be the fall-back position of the low-carbers. "OK, OK, you're right, carb calories don't really make you fatter. But they don't fill you up as much as good ol' meat." But that doesn't make sense. Bread and pasta are filling.
well, for what it is worth, i always feel more disgustingly full after a very greasy meal than after a healthy one low-in-fat. not that it means grease is good for you, but it does seem to be its own appetite suppressant. i can eat a salad and a lean-meat sandwich for lunch, and be starving my dinner time, but eat fries and a burger, and my appetite is shot for the rest of the day.
man, all i know is that if i don't get red meat for a while, i crave it like nothing else.
i can sit down and polish of 26oz. of steak in one sitting without a hitch. and i don't feel that full when i'm done, but i'm not hungry again for another day or so. i do think that meat is more filling, and eating stuff with fat in it is more likely to fill you up.
reminds me of the other day when my wife came home with "low fat" peanut butter. i took our old regular one and held it up next to the low fat one. side by side, with the same serving size and all, the regular one had the same number of calories as the low fat one. difference was one was fat calories, the other was sugar calories.
if that's the case, just give me my real peanut butter. ugh, anything diet makes me sick.
My advisor lost 20 pounds in two months by making one simple change to his diet: he added nuts.
No exercise change, he just substituted a handful of mixed nuts (no salt) for the no-fat, no-cholesterol, high-fiber rye crackers he'd been munching on at work.
Turned out the nuts made him full quicker, so he ate way less in overall calories during the day. The crackers he could (and did) munch on all day long, and never feel satisfied.
Fats fill you up faster than they add extra calories, compared to most sugar laden foods. If it's twice the calories per unit eaten, but you're eating a quarter the units, that's half the caloric intake. Schwing!
Er, the food guide pyramid is pretty much seen as highly flawed now. The USDA is in the middle of a massive re-think on it.
That pyramid was based on 50's science and medical philosophy - we've come a long way since then.
They're always rethinking it.
Yeah, we've come a long way, all the way to Atkins. At least the pyramid was based on science rather than a scam artists' non-scientific fantasy. The main problem in Americans' diets is too much fat. That's where most of the excess calories come from. That's what the pyramid addresses. And I don't think we've really come that far from then. Sure, complex carbohydrates are better than simple. Saturated fat is bad, but unsaturated is good. But those things weren't unknown at the time the pyramid was developed. They just wanted to keep it as simple as possible and get at the main problem in Americans' diet. I think it's fair to say they could have distinguished those things, and it would be better if they came up with a message that included them.
But the point I was making still holds: you should get the majority of your calories from carbs, you shouldn't cut them out.
Quote:
My advisor lost 20 pounds in two months by making one simple change to his diet: he added nuts.
Well, nuts are good for you in the sense they have the good fat, but they also have a ton of calories. But come on, that's just absurd Kickaha.
I have to confess, my wife is a registered dietitian. To her, all this wacky stuff is like people's belief in astrology that we've been making fun of in the other thread. There's just a world of difference between science-based nutrition and the popular beliefs about it.
well, for what it is worth, i always feel more disgustingly full after a very greasy meal than after a healthy one low-in-fat. not that it means grease is good for you, but it does seem to be its own appetite suppressant. i can eat a salad and a lean-meat sandwich for lunch, and be starving my dinner time, but eat fries and a burger, and my appetite is shot for the rest of the day.
And alcimedes:
But isn't there a simpler explanation there: You're just getting more calories from the greasy, fatty foods than the leans and salads. There's nothing magical about where the calories come from, as the low-carbers try to say.
Comments
(Ok, I made up the last part, but he didn't realize his love of beer was getting in the way of weight loss.)
1) It's extremely hard to find clothes when you're a fit American. Everything is tailored for fatsos.
2) Fat people take up more space on any form of public transportation. . . Buses, Subways, Airplanes, you name it. Sitting between two lard buckets on the Washington-LA direct SUCKS.
3) I HATE cupholders in cars. Grrrrr.
Granted number 3 isn't going to go anywhere, I welcome the prospect of a slimmer population.
Aries 1B
That's basically why people lose a lot of weight.
I mean you get muscle tone fast . . . coupled with working out and bango . . .and you lose weight without trying
Most of the best foods are high protien anyway
Now its just standard practice
"do as i say, not as i do".
he died being 6'1" and 250 lb.
i cant understand how anyone who sold millions of dieting books could allow himself to be obese.
google for "atkins died" or "atkins heart problems" and you'll find a lot of stuff.
Originally posted by Giaguara
low carb stuff: people believe what mr atkins wrote.
"do as i say, not as i do".
he died being 6'1" and 250 lb.
Needless to say, lots of people are losing weight on low-carb diets. They're not necessarily eating healthy, but they're losing weight Weight loss is a good first step. It's a jumping off point for improved self-esteem, exercise, etc.
Also, the doctors in my family were recently talking about these diets, and the traditional concept of eating balanced amounts of fat, carbs and proteins *gasp* and just paying attention to the # of calories you take in. It's pretty much been assumed that all calories were created equal until now. That's the next big question.
fat = fat.
or it was so before.
atkins etc are trying to tell that the fat and obese EUROPEANS are nearly all in no fatr or low fat diet.
and those who eat more fat are thinner.
they forget that japanese are a lot thinner than europeans in media, and in japanese food under 10 % of calories come from fat.
so fat europeans eat low fat food, and .. japanese can't be applied to that rule.
personally, all fat europeans i know, eat a lot of a) junk food and generally b) food that is high in fat, such as junk food, fried food, all kinds of pastries, cakes, etc etc.
The reason why fat makes you fat is because every gram of fat amounts to 9 calories vs 4 calories for both protein and carbohydrates.
The Atkins diet is all about making you feel full, and stuff like meat and other high protein foods do that better than starchy items like rice, grains, etc.
Originally posted by Giaguara
i cant understand how anyone who sold millions of dieting books could allow himself to be obese.
He didn't. After he fell and scrambled his brains, he gained 60 lbs. in the hospital on all the medications they put him on before he finally passed on. His wife refuted all these people's claims that he was a hypocrite.
My view on the whole low-carb thing is that it's really good for people who are very obese or have a hard time moving (ie. People who can't burn off those carbs). For most everyone else I think they're missing the point. Like others have said here, moderation is the key and exercise MUST be included in a fitness/diet plan. I think these fastos are just finding excuses to not get off their fat asses and do what it takes to REALLY lose weight.
My mom is the perfect example. She keeps trying every supplement/whatever under the sun to lose weight, but she's getting nowhere because she won't exercise.
It isn't rocket science, folks: Eating in moderation. Diet AND exercise.
its kind of like news reporters asking former (and loosing) presidential candidates what it takes to win - THEY DONT KNOW _ THEY NEVER DID IT
Originally posted by Giaguara
low carb stuff: people believe what mr atkins wrote.
"do as i say, not as i do".
he died being 6'1" and 250 lb.
i cant understand how anyone who sold millions of dieting books could allow himself to be obese.
google for "atkins died" or "atkins heart problems" and you'll find a lot of stuff.
I'm going to insert a piece I wrote elsewhere in response to this. Giaguara, a_greer, you got taken for a ride.
------
I hate to even call it journalism, really...
Check this article out... Dr. guru qualified as obese
Wow. Shocker, huh? Juicy! Ironic! Guess that shows him, huh!?
Dr. Robert Atkins, whose popular diet stresses protein-rich meat and cheese over carbohydrates, weighed 258 pounds at his death and had a history of heart disease, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
Wow, I guess his weight and heart disease must have been due to the diet, huh? Heh. You can feel the irony dripping like fat off a grilled cheeseburger, I'm tellin' ya.
Atkins died last April at age 72 after being injured in a fall on an icy street.
Oh, you mean he didn't die from being obese, or his heart condition? Oh well, he was *still* fat, and you just *know* his arteries were clogged solid, the old quack.
Before his death, he had suffered a heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing a report by the city medical examiner.
See? Heart problems! Gotta be that diet. What an idiot.
At 258 pounds, the 6-foot-tall Atkins would have qualified as obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's body-mass index calculator.
*258*?? Jesus, the guy was a walking fat globule! *snicker snicker snicker*
Diet is one potential factor in heart disease, but infections also can contribute to it.
Hunh? What's that got to do with anything? The guy was *huge*, the guy ate *fat*!
Stuart Trager, chairman of the Atkins Physicians Council in New York, told the Journal that Atkins' heart disease stemmed from cardiomyopathy, a condition thought to result from a viral infection.
So... his heart condition wasn't due to his diet, but due to an infection???
Oh well, the guy was still a tubbo. What a maroon! Ha!
Atkins' weight was due to bloating associated with his condition, and he had been much slimmer during most of his life, Trager said.
Wait... now you're saying that his weight likely due to *water*, and *not* fat, and had nothing to do with his diet? Well, that's just...
But he died of heart disease, right? No, wait, that was a fall on the ice.
But he was fat, right? No, he had water retention.
But he had massive heart disease, that's gotta be from the diet, right? No, an infection.
Then why on earth is this supposed to be news? Who could benefit from this?
The medical examiner's report was given to the Journal by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates vegetarianism. The medical examiner's office told the Journal that the report had been sent to the group in error.
So what's the headline got to do with anything again?
Slimy.
My grandfather bloated like that in his last years - he was mortified by it. May 2002 I flew back home for a 'last visit' because death was imminent. They tried a new medication as a last ditch effort, and he lost *60 lbs of water in 36 hrs*. That's a lot of catheter bags, folks. Sixty pounds. All water. All due to the congestive heart disease. From an infection. (Scarlet fever as a child, actually.)
Not diet.
There is no irony here, just a sad tale of an old man slipping on the ice and dying.
But that doesn't sell papers, or webclicks.
Slimy.
This isn't journalism, it's tabloid muckraking for the hell of it.
-------
Atkins wasn't obese, he had massive water retention from a heart condition that had nothing to do with diet, but instead an infection. (And, he gained 60 lbs of water while he was in a coma after his fall. At the time of his fall, he was just under 200.)
A doctor's vegetarian group with an axe to grind decided to start a smear campaign. I'm sorry to see you got suckered in. Worse, they were *doctors*... they *knew* what those medical reports meant, and they spun it the way they wanted to.
Not just slimy 'journalism', but slimy doctors.
Originally posted by Eugene
The processes of converting fats, proteins and carbs are not equal, but calories have always been calories. When you see "Calories from Fat" in the the Nutrition Facts info on food packaging, that's just telling you how much fat is in the product, not that it has different types of elemental calories.
The reason why fat makes you fat is because every gram of fat amounts to 9 calories vs 4 calories for both protein and carbohydrates.
The Atkins diet is all about making you feel full, and stuff like meat and other high protein foods do that better than starchy items like rice, grains, etc.
I agree with the first part of your post, but I'm skeptical about the last paragraph.
This seems to be the fall-back position of the low-carbers. "OK, OK, you're right, carb calories don't really make you fatter. But they don't fill you up as much as good ol' meat." But that doesn't make sense. Bread and pasta are filling. I think what's going on with people who really do lose weight with Atkins is that they're restricting what they can eat, and so they simply eat less calories than before. All fad diets work exactly the same way: eat only cabbage, or melon, or X Y and Z, and you'll lose weight due to calorie restriction.
Because most people get the majority of their calories from breads and pastas, when you cut those back, you're cutting a significant portion of your calories back. The thing is, you should be getting the majority of your calories from those things.
Look at the food guide pyramid. Scientists came up with that, not book sellers. Sure, they have "use sparingly" for sweets. But all those supposedly bad things like bread and pasta form the basis of your diet. Of course if you cut down on the basis of your diet, you're going to lose weight.
That pyramid was based on 50's science and medical philosophy - we've come a long way since then.
Originally posted by BRussell
This seems to be the fall-back position of the low-carbers. "OK, OK, you're right, carb calories don't really make you fatter. But they don't fill you up as much as good ol' meat." But that doesn't make sense. Bread and pasta are filling.
well, for what it is worth, i always feel more disgustingly full after a very greasy meal than after a healthy one low-in-fat. not that it means grease is good for you, but it does seem to be its own appetite suppressant. i can eat a salad and a lean-meat sandwich for lunch, and be starving my dinner time, but eat fries and a burger, and my appetite is shot for the rest of the day.
i can sit down and polish of 26oz. of steak in one sitting without a hitch. and i don't feel that full when i'm done, but i'm not hungry again for another day or so. i do think that meat is more filling, and eating stuff with fat in it is more likely to fill you up.
reminds me of the other day when my wife came home with "low fat" peanut butter. i took our old regular one and held it up next to the low fat one. side by side, with the same serving size and all, the regular one had the same number of calories as the low fat one. difference was one was fat calories, the other was sugar calories.
if that's the case, just give me my real peanut butter. ugh, anything diet makes me sick.
No exercise change, he just substituted a handful of mixed nuts (no salt) for the no-fat, no-cholesterol, high-fiber rye crackers he'd been munching on at work.
Turned out the nuts made him full quicker, so he ate way less in overall calories during the day. The crackers he could (and did) munch on all day long, and never feel satisfied.
Fats fill you up faster than they add extra calories, compared to most sugar laden foods. If it's twice the calories per unit eaten, but you're eating a quarter the units, that's half the caloric intake. Schwing!
Originally posted by Kickaha
Er, the food guide pyramid is pretty much seen as highly flawed now. The USDA is in the middle of a massive re-think on it.
That pyramid was based on 50's science and medical philosophy - we've come a long way since then.
They're always rethinking it.
Yeah, we've come a long way, all the way to Atkins. At least the pyramid was based on science rather than a scam artists' non-scientific fantasy. The main problem in Americans' diets is too much fat. That's where most of the excess calories come from. That's what the pyramid addresses. And I don't think we've really come that far from then. Sure, complex carbohydrates are better than simple. Saturated fat is bad, but unsaturated is good. But those things weren't unknown at the time the pyramid was developed. They just wanted to keep it as simple as possible and get at the main problem in Americans' diet. I think it's fair to say they could have distinguished those things, and it would be better if they came up with a message that included them.
But the point I was making still holds: you should get the majority of your calories from carbs, you shouldn't cut them out.
My advisor lost 20 pounds in two months by making one simple change to his diet: he added nuts.
Well, nuts are good for you in the sense they have the good fat, but they also have a ton of calories. But come on, that's just absurd Kickaha.
I have to confess, my wife is a registered dietitian. To her, all this wacky stuff is like people's belief in astrology that we've been making fun of in the other thread. There's just a world of difference between science-based nutrition and the popular beliefs about it.
Originally posted by rok
well, for what it is worth, i always feel more disgustingly full after a very greasy meal than after a healthy one low-in-fat. not that it means grease is good for you, but it does seem to be its own appetite suppressant. i can eat a salad and a lean-meat sandwich for lunch, and be starving my dinner time, but eat fries and a burger, and my appetite is shot for the rest of the day.
And alcimedes:
But isn't there a simpler explanation there: You're just getting more calories from the greasy, fatty foods than the leans and salads. There's nothing magical about where the calories come from, as the low-carbers try to say.