Nutrition forum is full of health freaks

[Kristiina]

So.... I have a problem. I can't seem to get my body weight under control. I try my best, but right now my weight is constant. I want to lose about 16 pounds (doesn't everyone?). I registered into a health forum and told them my problem. I have re-evaluated my entire lifestyle and diet. I lift weights 3 times per week and I walk 5-12 km per day (Monday-Friday). I eat about 1800 kcal per day divided into 5-6 small meals. It used to be 2500kcal mainly during dinner. I told them my problem and what did they tell me... "You ate an entire banana during a meal? You know how many carbs that is?" "You don't need that protein shake after practice! It's calories! You don't want to build muscle, do you?" "10g of chocolate? Eat an apple in stead!"

It was a culture shock for me! It makes no sense. People are nuts. I'm not after a strict diet. I just want to improve my lifestyle. 1800 kcal with consistent weight lifting and lots of walking should be enough to use more calories than I eat, at least if I don't eat it all in 1-2 meals. Eating healthy is not the same as watching your sister eat chocolate and say you can't even have one piece because you're trying to "eat healthy". *notgonnarant,notgonnarant,notgonnarant*

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[XoX]

Do a low-carb diet. E.g. Atkins or something similar. Works well and you don't have to feel hungry at all.

[Creepy-bg]

meth.

[Kristiina]

Atkins Diet? Mhh... I've considered it and decided to try another diet that I read about. It's called Bul Imia. I should be somewhat healthier, because I get all the nutrients that I need. It's just a matter of the rate of absorption in the body.





Fortunately someone logged in, who stated making sense. He told me about the different density of muscle tissue and fat tissue. Unfortunately I know all that and already took that into account so it didn't help me much. I've read too much of this issue. I guess it will be a while before anyone says anything new there.

[Rocky]

Do a low-carb diet. E.g. Atkins or something similar. Works well and you don't have to feel hungry at all.

Not healthy.

BTW, LOL@ health freaks who don't know what they're talking about.

[aestrivex]

as far as i'm concerned, the following is a diet: refrain from eating donuts and eat vegetables instead.

anybody who imposes something stricter than that would be a veritable nutrition freak, as defined by this thread.

[XoX]

Atkins Diet? Mhh... I've considered it and decided to try another diet that I read about. It's called Bul Imia. I should be somewhat healthier, because I get all the nutrients that I need. It's just a matter of the rate of absorption in the body.

Haha. But low-carb is the best and most healthiest. It is true.
---

MEDICAL RESEARCH SHOCKER: ATKINS DIET WORKS!!!

So how many published peer-reviewed journal articles confirming the efficacy and health benefits of the Atkins Diet does it take to convince the medical and nutrition communities and the general public that carbohydrate control is the healthiest way to eat and the most effective way to control and manage weight?

Apparently, the answer is somewhat akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So JAMA has done it again and the media is aghast! Shocking evidence that Atkins is superior.Never mind that there have been dozens of published studies out of the National Institutes of Health, Harvard, Tufts, the University of Pennsylvania and Duke University; each publication is met with surprise.

The evidence in favor of carbohydrate restriction continues to accumulate. Once again, this study quantifies what physicians using this technique to treat disease and return metabolic parameters to normal have reported over and over again.

The Stanford research team had four groups of patients (around 79 patients in a group), with the groups randomly assigned to one of the following diets:Atkins (low carb, unlimited fat and protein), LEARN (low fat calorie restricted), Zone (40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fat), and Ornish (10% fat).

Patients were given eight group sessions at weekly intervals with a registered dietician in which they covered the book assigned to their group and discussed food choices.

I credit Dr. Atkins for his foresight in funding, out of his own pocket, the initial round of clinical studies that were the impetus for these investigations. (See the results of the first Atkins study done by Eric Westman). Thankfully, Dr. Atkins invested in scientific study when the official scientific community was ensconced in dogma, reciting the low-fat creed, and faithfully touting the same ineffective strategies.

Dr. Atkins saw the improvement in his patients starting in the late 1960s. I see the improvements in my patients, too. Oh, look! Almost 50 years later, the same improvements are found in this study. Better weight loss (by almost 50%), improvement in triglycerides and HDL (the best markers of cardiovascular risk).Blood pressure improves as well. One might even think the patients were healthier.

What about the LDL cholesterol? No significant change. The authors of the study state that with the drop in triglycerides, the LDL particles would be the large, fluffy, non-atherogenic type. This is true. Good for the team who did this study. They constructed and performed a study that really would show the differences between the approaches.

Given a fair comparison, carbohydrate restriction made a much greater impact on health measures than any of the other dietary plans. We feed ourselves and our families diets with large amounts of refined carbohydrates. Any Kansas farmer will tell you that if you want to make steer fat, you feed him grain. We are fattening ourselves as we do our food animals. Take the carbs out,(except for the leafy greens), eat the protein and fat to your hearts content, and the content of your heart improves!

The surprise in today’s Journal Of The American Medical Association is not that Atkins works and confers health benefits, the surprise is that it’s still a surprise.

You can lead a mainstream doctor to water, but clearly you can’t make him drink.Oh, wait, sorry, that’s a horse.

[jessica129]

I wouldn't recommend Atkins unless you want to loose a serious amount of weight. Don't get me wrong, it was excellent for me, I lost about 40 lbs, but i've been stuck with it for 2 years now. Everytime I try to go off and eat normal foods such as fruit, I explode. It's entirely too hard to get off of.

[XoX]

Here is example of three good diets which emphasize the reduced or controlled intake of carbohydrates. They are all a bit different though. Atkins being very strict where Montignac and South Beach offering a bit different approaches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_...ional_Approach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montignac_diet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Beach_Diet

Generally the idea is: Cut all bad carbs and eat good carbs only minimally. So cut e.g. sugar, bread, pasta, rice, potatoes and such completely. Then eat good carbs like many vegetables, some fruits, berries and such in a controlled way (not too much but enough to get your vitamins and such). Make sure you get enough fat as it is going to be your main energy source and watch it that you don't get too much protein (protein should not be used as energy source but only to build muscles and such and low-carb diet easily explodes your protein amounts). Once your body gets rid of carbs and learns to use fat as energy source your body fat will just d-i-s-a-p-p-e-a-r (unless you eat too much over your energy consumption levels of course).

Well. That's about it. Keep daily intake of carbs around 20-30 grams and weight loss is guaranteed. 30-70 grams will most likely make you loose weight but you have to watch the amounts you eat a bit. Around 100 grams a day is the maximum if you want to call it "low carb" but this is more useful in healthy "maintenance state" instead of actually losing weight.

[Topaz]

My suggestion is use the law of attraction. Forget about loosing weight and concentrate on being healthy. Forget about being perfect and concentrate on liking yourself. Forget about depriving yourself and look at all the good healthy stuff there is to eat out there. It may sound a little hokey but its true. You will see the results in accord with what you give energy to. (After saying that he then he smiled dreamily, and gradually disapated in a cloud of smoke )

[XoX]

I only now read the first post completely and realized I am one of those health freaks you mentioned, lol. I guess you won't follow my advice then.

[niveK]

My suggestion is use the law of attraction. Forget about loosing weight and concentrate on being healthy. Forget about being perfect and concentrate on liking yourself. Forget about depriving yourself and look at all the good healthy stuff there is to eat out there. It may sound a little hokey but its true. You will see the results in accord with what you give energy to. (After saying that he then he smiled dreamily, and gradually disapated in a cloud of smoke )

Yeah, just remember: It's not the food that makes you fat, it's you thinking the food will make you fat that makes you fat.

Sadly, that's what the "law of attraction" actually teaches. However, I don't want to get into yet another conversation about why it's just more New Age BS.

Eat a healthy balance of nutrients (it's something like 60% carbs, 10% fats, etc., I don't remember the exact numbers). Count your calories, and it should work out. Just realize that your body has something of a minimum healthy limit that's genetically predetermined. Not everyone has the genetics to be "model" thin.

BTW, any news story reporting that the Atkins diet was vindicated by a recent study is quite mistaken. When I'm less busy, I'll post a link to a genuine critique of the study that explains why the news isn't as good for Atkins as its proponents would have you believe. In short though, Atkins has a high tendency for weight regain. You'll lose a good bit of weight at first, but it'll come back later almost as quickly. Furthermore, the net weight lost over the year of the study (start - finish, doesn't account for the flux that occurred during the study period) was far less than what should be accomplished by a net burn of 3500 calories (1 pound) per week for all of the tested diets.

[XoX]

Eat a healthy balance of nutrients (it's something like 60% carbs, 10% fats, etc., I don't remember the exact numbers).

Poison! (I try not to ruin Kristiina's mood again but I have to say it...POISON!)

[XoX]

As more evidence two of my wives relatives (a couple) had weight control problems and started to do low carb (just generally reduced carb intake to quite low not really followed any diet) and they have lost considerable amount of weight. And they eat quite alot while still losing weight.

And the weight obviously comes back if you start eating like you did before the diet. Umm. Where's the surprise there?

[implied]

i agree with topaz, rocky, and niffweed.

(i am so anti-atkins it is pathetic.)

somehow actually counting and taking measurements on diets seems counterproductive. and i'm not exactly anti-law-of-attraction (yet) in this case. to some degree i agree that overthinking about food and diets eventually completely makes the goal no matter how small it may seem appear unreachable. the more complex and involved you are in your daily routine with food (or whatever you are trying to abstain from,) the bigger the temptation becomes and the harder it becomes to deny yourself things.

i don't think 10g of chocolate is going to kill you or totally sabotage your efforts. but you may get to the point where you just don't care much about sweets anymore or have cravings, which, hey, for the better (this is how it worked with me at least, as i gradually became vegetarian, even though i used to really be fond of meat MEAT MEAT!)

[niveK]

Critique on recent diet study that some people claim vindicates Atkins

Reading a bit more, I realize you probably don't want some complicated system to deal with. And I'd agree with implied that when it gets rather complex, it can be a bit psychologically defeating. Truthfully, I doubt anyone follows nutrient guidelines to the letter. You'll do just as well guessing, and really for most people, you don't have to think about it that much.

If you wanna lose weight, just eat a bit less than you normally do. It's likely you'll cut enough calories to be effective. It'll be weeks before you really start to notice anything, but it's the kind of weight loss that won't just rebound on you later. It helps also to limit yourself on snacks (a candy bar isn't going to make you inflate like a blimp, but having several a day for several days isn't going to help matters). Mostly, just eat sensible. Without specific health conditions, nutrition requires little thought other than making sure you have variety.

[FDG]

Atkins Diet? Mhh... I've considered it and decided to try another diet that I read about. It's called Bul Imia. I should be somewhat healthier, because I get all the nutrients that I need. It's just a matter of the rate of absorption in the body.

Haha. But low-carb is the best and most healthiest. It is true.
---

MEDICAL RESEARCH SHOCKER: ATKINS DIET WORKS!!!

So how many published peer-reviewed journal articles confirming the efficacy and health benefits of the Atkins Diet does it take to convince the medical and nutrition communities and the general public that carbohydrate control is the healthiest way to eat and the most effective way to control and manage weight?

Apparently, the answer is somewhat akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So JAMA has done it again and the media is aghast! Shocking evidence that Atkins is superior.Never mind that there have been dozens of published studies out of the National Institutes of Health, Harvard, Tufts, the University of Pennsylvania and Duke University; each publication is met with surprise.

The evidence in favor of carbohydrate restriction continues to accumulate. Once again, this study quantifies what physicians using this technique to treat disease and return metabolic parameters to normal have reported over and over again.

The Stanford research team had four groups of patients (around 79 patients in a group), with the groups randomly assigned to one of the following diets:Atkins (low carb, unlimited fat and protein), LEARN (low fat calorie restricted), Zone (40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fat), and Ornish (10% fat).

Patients were given eight group sessions at weekly intervals with a registered dietician in which they covered the book assigned to their group and discussed food choices.

I credit Dr. Atkins for his foresight in funding, out of his own pocket, the initial round of clinical studies that were the impetus for these investigations. (See the results of the first Atkins study done by Eric Westman). Thankfully, Dr. Atkins invested in scientific study when the official scientific community was ensconced in dogma, reciting the low-fat creed, and faithfully touting the same ineffective strategies.

Dr. Atkins saw the improvement in his patients starting in the late 1960s. I see the improvements in my patients, too. Oh, look! Almost 50 years later, the same improvements are found in this study. Better weight loss (by almost 50%), improvement in triglycerides and HDL (the best markers of cardiovascular risk).Blood pressure improves as well. One might even think the patients were healthier.

What about the LDL cholesterol? No significant change. The authors of the study state that with the drop in triglycerides, the LDL particles would be the large, fluffy, non-atherogenic type. This is true. Good for the team who did this study. They constructed and performed a study that really would show the differences between the approaches.

Given a fair comparison, carbohydrate restriction made a much greater impact on health measures than any of the other dietary plans. We feed ourselves and our families diets with large amounts of refined carbohydrates. Any Kansas farmer will tell you that if you want to make steer fat, you feed him grain. We are fattening ourselves as we do our food animals. Take the carbs out,(except for the leafy greens), eat the protein and fat to your hearts content, and the content of your heart improves!

The surprise in today’s Journal Of The American Medical Association is not that Atkins works and confers health benefits, the surprise is that it’s still a surprise.

You can lead a mainstream doctor to water, but clearly you can’t make him drink.Oh, wait, sorry, that’s a horse.

I think it's the best for pure fat loss. If you exercise and go for Atkins, it's likely that depending on your methabolism, you are going to feel bad.

Example, endomorphs and endo-meso can go for it without a problem.

pure mesos, when they need to lose weight, but it's not optimal.

meso-ecto, better stay away from it, the muscles become flat after 1 week.

ecto, if you want to die try it

[Topaz]

I used to work in an office with a bunch of women who obsessed about food, diet and weight all the time. It was quite annoying. None of them ever lost a pound. After a while it started affecting me until I started thinking about it more and more and started gaining weight too. I finally left and went on to other things and without even concentrating on it too hard my weight returned to normal (uh for me that is ) and I dont have stress about it. Now, I know its different for men than it is for women. Men seem to be able to lose weight easier. It might be because men are more inclind to exercise when stressed and women tend to talk it out with their freinds........over cheesecake
Anyway, call it what you want but I dont think its a good idea to dwell on what you dont want.

[FDG]

Eat a healthy balance of nutrients (it's something like 60% carbs, 10% fats, etc., I don't remember the exact numbers).

Poison! (I try not to ruin Kristiina's mood again but I have to say it...POISON!)

Uhm, 40-30-30 is not poison. 60-30-10, yes, it is.

[niveK]

Eat a healthy balance of nutrients (it's something like 60% carbs, 10% fats, etc., I don't remember the exact numbers).

Poison! (I try not to ruin Kristiina's mood again but I have to say it...POISON!)

Uhm, 40-30-30 is not poison. 60-30-10, yes, it is.

Heh, there's a pretty good chance I got the numbers horribly wrong. I just vaguely recall it from college. I could have sworn it was 60% for carbs, though.

[FDG]

I wouldn't recommend Atkins unless you want to loose a serious amount of weight. Don't get me wrong, it was excellent for me, I lost about 40 lbs, but i've been stuck with it for 2 years now. Everytime I try to go off and eat normal foods such as fruit, I explode. It's entirely too hard to get off of.

That's because the Atkins diet heavily relies on explusion of water retention from the organism. This doesn't mean it doesn't burn fat, mind you, but given:

A 40-30-30, calorie-deficit diet and

A 5-40-55, calorie deficit atkins

then the same amount of pounds lost with the first diet are more likely to be purely out of fat in comparison to the second. This is because carbs are precursors for water retention. Visually and weight-wise, there is no way to distinguish water retention from fat. Thus, if the atkins diet allows you to lose 20 pounds in a time-frame which is shorter than a, say, 40-30-30, it is also because it sheds away water retention. Unfortunately, it is bound to return the first time carbs are eaten, as you say. This is because insulinoresistance drops completely due to the lack of sugars, and when the intake of sugars themslves shoots up all of a sudden, they are immediatly sent to tissue (which can be both muscle and fat, though).
Instead a more balanced diet keeps the water retention to an at least acceptable level. It does look counterintuitive that water retention can be considered positive, but given what has been said above, it is easy to see that, even if the time-frame is going to be longer, it is more likely that the pounds lost are of pure fat as opposed to fat+water.

Over a rather long time-frame (say, 2 years), the differences tend towards zero, that is to say both diets shed the same amount of fat. However, Atkins still has the problem Jessica mentions in her post.

Heh, there's a pretty good chance I got the numbers horribly wrong. I just vaguely recall it from college. I could have sworn it was 60% for carbs, though.

I think @ college they might have said 60, but I personally think it's too high unless you perform high intensity, high duration aerobic activities.

[Kristiina]

I'm all for the "less restrictive diet". I tried counting all my calories and carbs and everything, but my carb intake fluctuates a lot. And it totally got me frustrated - "what?! I can't even eat an apple, because even that is just pure carbs?! What?! strawberry yoghurt has so many carbs, I'm supposed to eat the tasteless sour yoghurt?! I hate that. What?! I put simple sugars in my coffee and it's just bad cards... awww... I like sugar in my coffee." I was pretty close to dumping everything because the nutrition recommendations from different websites sucked so bad. Then I stopped counting it all. Now I just write down calories (700 less than before) and protein intake (at least 60g now)

[olduser]

Don't forget to enjoy what you eat. Eat less sweets. Eat fruits and vegetables. Avoid processed foods. Avoid processed cheese--it tastes awful. . Don't put salt on your food, it's more of a distraction than a flavor. I'm going to make chili garlic stir fry now,

[Kristiina]

Don't forget to enjoy what you eat. Eat less sweets. Eat fruits and vegetables. Avoid processed foods. Avoid processed cheese--it tastes awful. . Don't put salt on your food, it's more of a distraction than a flavor. I'm going to make chili garlic stir fry now,

lol. I try. I'm gonna eat grapes today. I know it has carbs, but I don't care. No one in their right mind should ever consider any fruit to be "giving into temptation". Fruits are healthy, right? How about healthy dairy like milk? According to different resources, it's just carbs and calories. People worldwide are encouraged to eat food that tastes like cardboard if they want to stay healthy. People with a healthy diet are supposed to be healthier, but I can't imagine how that amount of stress could do any good to anyone.

Jessica, I can't describe how sorry I feel for you for being on that diet. This has been my biggest fear - that I accidentally restrict my eating too much and have to do it for the rest of my life if I want to keep the pounds off. As a biologist I also think that a person should be able to eat everything that humans have evolutionally eaten for thousands of years. I have no intention of arguing with human evolution. although I will try to trick it any way I can, for example by eating less calories in smaller portions so my body doesn't notice that I eat less.

[olduser]

hmm. As a biologist do you ever consider the possibility that your current weight, where you feel healthy and can be productive, is your natural weight? And given that, do you want to continue being natural?

[Kristiina]

I have considered that 5kg below that is my natural weight. That was the one that I managed to have for about 3 years without being on a diet or even excercising. When I also excercised, it was 8kg below my current weight. It was an unstable weight for me. I had to pay attention to what I eat. I preferred skipping a meal to eating "bad calories". I didn't starve, I just didn't eat right either. I like to blame quitting smoking on my current weight. That's an excuse most people understand, but it's not th entire truth. Living together with a guy also had an effect. (portion size, more meat, more frying.)

If I gain muscle tissue and still lose 5kg, I think I'll look very good.

[XoX]

A 40-30-30, calorie-deficit diet

I think this would be something like the Zone diet which is a bit different from real low-carbs diets but still stresses that carbs shouldn't dominate your diet like in many low-fat diets where fat is see as teh evil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_diet

[XoX]

Kristiina: Counting calories will make you lose weight. I have experience that it works. So no worries there. Why I quit liking it was that you have to eat way less than in low-carb diets which means you will find it hard to keep your muscle mass while losing weight and you will have to feel hunger to some extent. My personal experience from lowish carb diets is so far quite short so we'll see how it develops. I have seen it work well in people around me though. Anyways I would think that for many people the kind of system you described works reasonably well.

About some other posts in the thread: I don't find it hard at all to follow a system (even though I always adapt a ready made system to my own personal likings). Actually I love it when I have a system I can follow which more or less guarantees results. It kind of free's me from thinking about what should I eat. When I use the system long enough it gets automated in my brain and I start to "live the system". Then I don't have to think about it at all anymore. As I have a habbit of gaining weight very easily when I eat "whatever" these low-carb systems which control your weight while still letting you eat quite a lot are a heaven to me. I guess my natural weight and fat% is quite high. I have never been able to get below fat% of 15 not even when I did heavy sports every day. Now I manage to keep my fat levels around 15% with the low-carb diets even if I'm not that young anymore and don't train as much. I wonder if in long term I have to switch to Zone (40-30-30) or some other balanced diet and start calculating calories again. We'll see.

Anyways, I think it makes it easier for me that I generally can eat whatever food without being very picky about my favourites. And I don't have much desires for any specific food or ingredient. Food is more or less numbers for me. Even though I do enjoy a good meal at a fancy restaurant every now and then I don't need that every day. E.g. my wife is quite different from me in this sense since she just enjoys certain foods too much to drop them from the diet. Still she has tried to lower her carb intake somewhat because so many of our family are doing low-carbs and life is easier for her if we all can eat the same food. One obvious result has been the she has really no need to eat candies and sugar anymore which she absolutely couldn't resist before. I think that by eating sugar your body start to crave for more sugar. By eating "sour" food you get used to it and don't need sweeteners as much as you did before. Your taste changes slowly. Your body and mind adapts.

As a final word I think Zone or some other 40-30-30 diet is better for professional athletes or for people who train a LOT. It is hard to reach your peak physical performance without some carbs. For ordinary people I would recommend less carbs. I think a mediterranean diet (e.g. Italian) where pasta and bread (Edit: corrected a typo) intake is reduced somewhat is one of the most healthy options for those seeking an easy diet.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Kristiina]

I try to do the opposite. I eat once every couple of hours so my blood sugar wouldn't drop very low.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Rocky]

Atkins Diet? Mhh... I've considered it and decided to try another diet that I read about. It's called Bul Imia. I should be somewhat healthier, because I get all the nutrients that I need. It's just a matter of the rate of absorption in the body.

Haha. But low-carb is the best and most healthiest. It is true.
---

MEDICAL RESEARCH SHOCKER: ATKINS DIET WORKS!!!

So how many published peer-reviewed journal articles confirming the efficacy and health benefits of the Atkins Diet does it take to convince the medical and nutrition communities and the general public that carbohydrate control is the healthiest way to eat and the most effective way to control and manage weight?

Apparently, the answer is somewhat akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So JAMA has done it again and the media is aghast! Shocking evidence that Atkins is superior.Never mind that there have been dozens of published studies out of the National Institutes of Health, Harvard, Tufts, the University of Pennsylvania and Duke University; each publication is met with surprise.

The evidence in favor of carbohydrate restriction continues to accumulate. Once again, this study quantifies what physicians using this technique to treat disease and return metabolic parameters to normal have reported over and over again.

The Stanford research team had four groups of patients (around 79 patients in a group), with the groups randomly assigned to one of the following diets:Atkins (low carb, unlimited fat and protein), LEARN (low fat calorie restricted), Zone (40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fat), and Ornish (10% fat).

Patients were given eight group sessions at weekly intervals with a registered dietician in which they covered the book assigned to their group and discussed food choices.

I credit Dr. Atkins for his foresight in funding, out of his own pocket, the initial round of clinical studies that were the impetus for these investigations. (See the results of the first Atkins study done by Eric Westman). Thankfully, Dr. Atkins invested in scientific study when the official scientific community was ensconced in dogma, reciting the low-fat creed, and faithfully touting the same ineffective strategies.

Dr. Atkins saw the improvement in his patients starting in the late 1960s. I see the improvements in my patients, too. Oh, look! Almost 50 years later, the same improvements are found in this study. Better weight loss (by almost 50%), improvement in triglycerides and HDL (the best markers of cardiovascular risk).Blood pressure improves as well. One might even think the patients were healthier.

What about the LDL cholesterol? No significant change. The authors of the study state that with the drop in triglycerides, the LDL particles would be the large, fluffy, non-atherogenic type. This is true. Good for the team who did this study. They constructed and performed a study that really would show the differences between the approaches.

Given a fair comparison, carbohydrate restriction made a much greater impact on health measures than any of the other dietary plans. We feed ourselves and our families diets with large amounts of refined carbohydrates. Any Kansas farmer will tell you that if you want to make steer fat, you feed him grain. We are fattening ourselves as we do our food animals. Take the carbs out,(except for the leafy greens), eat the protein and fat to your hearts content, and the content of your heart improves!

The surprise in today’s Journal Of The American Medical Association is not that Atkins works and confers health benefits, the surprise is that it’s still a surprise.

You can lead a mainstream doctor to water, but clearly you can’t make him drink.Oh, wait, sorry, that’s a horse.

Not healthy.

Lossing weight doesn't make you healthy.

Eating too much meat ruins your digestive track.

It also ruins your metabolism for the future, if you have anything with carbs in it latter (like a beer!) you explode at an unhealthy rate.

Not healthy.



(sorry, I didn't read any posts after this, but I felt I had to comment on it.)

[XoX]

Lossing weight doesn't make you healthy.

Yeah basically anything that makes you lose weight has some negative side effects.

Eating too much meat ruins your digestive track.

Then don't. There are alternatives to this. You don't have to eat only meat. It is hard to do low-carb without any meat but even that is possible.

It also ruins your metabolism for the future, if you have anything with carbs in it latter (like a beer!) you explode at an unhealthy rate.

This is true in the sense that your body gets used to burn fat instead of carbs. So if you suddenly start eating carbs your body might be bad at utilizing it. But low-fat diets do the same thing but the other way around. Your body forgets how to use fat and when you consume something with fat you explode. If you want to avoid this do Zone-diet or some other 40-30-30 diet which has a balance. And yes when doing low carb you can't drink beer. Red wine is one of the best (and well...only) low-carb alcohol drinks. So when you stop doing low carb do it s-l-o-w-l-y so your body gets used to the new food.