The Atkins Diet Topic

[macrosan]

The more you eat, and the less you exercise, the more weight you will put on. And vice versa.

This is what the mathematicians call trivially true. True but of little interest. The real question is why people eat more than they need. .

Actually, I don't believe that is the real question for people who want to lose weight. The real question for them is "What can I reasonably do to lose weight?". Your question may be of interest to scientists, but until they can agree on the fundamental science (and they're a million miles away from it right now, as many of the posts in this thread make clear) then the biological cause of over-eating is simply esoteric.

If more people simply accepted my "trivially true" statement as exactly that, then maybe they would stop hunting for the magic cures, and the many corporations willing to peddle them. Let me make quite clear that I do not categorize Atkins or Weight Watchers as quack remedies, becaause I just don't know anything about them. If they do work then that's great for those who use them and are happy with the results. But I still tend to the view that a successful Weight Watcher would quite likely have succeeded with a cheaper and more natural do-it-yourself diet.

[John Whiting]

Even eGulleteers exhibit a certain discipline. Our Fat Guy, though he conscientiously works at it, could nevertheless pass on the streets of Miami for an emaciated figure from an Oxfam poster.

But real obesity on a cosmic scale occurs when a developing country strikes it rich like the Nauru with their guano harvests. Ot visit any one of a number of Native American reservations, particularly those who have been allowed to establish casinos.

Read Atlantic's classic study of New World Syndrome:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/06/shell-p1.htm

[jhlurie]

macrosan keeps the weight off with that funky chicken dance.

[g.johnson]

The more you eat, and the less you exercise, the more weight you will put on. And vice versa.

This is what the mathematicians call trivially true. True but of little interest. The real question is why people eat more than they need. .

Actually, I don't believe that is the real question for people who want to lose weight. The real question for them is "What can I reasonably do to lose weight?". Your question may be of interest to scientists, but until they can agree on the fundamental science (and they're a million miles away from it right now, as many of the posts in this thread make clear) then the biological cause of over-eating is simply esoteric.

But mine is the real question for most people since the reason few stay on diets is because they're always hungry. If hunger can be suppressed then no conscious effort to reduce calory intake will be necessary.

And contrary to what you say, science does appear close to elucidating how hunger and satiety are controlled. (The contentious questions concern the safety and efficacy of different diets, a very different question.)

[cakewalk]

The more you eat, and the less you exercise, the more weight you will put on. And vice versa.

This is what the mathematicians call trivially true. True but of little interest. The real question is why people eat more than they need. .

Actually, I don't believe that is the real question for people who want to lose weight. The real question for them is "What can I reasonably do to lose weight?".

This can become a back-and-forth with no convincing done on either side, but I agree that the real question is why do people overeat? I've had a lifelong weight problem, and I know I'm not alone on that one. And for most overweight people, the relationship between the intake/expenditure of calories and its resultant influence on body weight is no revelation. Most of us know damned well that eating too much and doing too little will result in a weight gain, that's not rocket science, yet we continue to eat too much and do too little. So the real question is, why?

(And yes, if we all did that funky chicken dance every day we'd all be nice and svelte. )

(For years I thought "svelte" was a Yiddish word. Doesn't it sound like it should be a Yiddish word?)

[cakewalk]

But mine is the real question for most people since the reason few stay on diets is because they're always hungry. If hunger can be suppressed then no conscious effort to reduce calory intake will be necessary.

Uh oh. You sound like a thin person. Are you a thin person?

Chronic overweight and eating when not hungry go together like, well, soup and sandwich, shall we say? Not being hungry has never stopped me from eating -- unless I put my mind to it and *decide* not to eat because I don't need it. But the mere absence of hunger is hardly a factor.

[John Whiting]

If hunger can be suppressed then no conscious effort to reduce calory intake will be necessary.

Would that it were that simple. Let me repeat again the wise words of Brillat-Saverin: "Obesity is the result of the learned ability to eat when one is not hungry." It is certainly not hunger that leads one to finish off the contents of a pot that was intended to serve two meals, or empty a box of chocolates at one sitting. At times there comes an irresistible urge to just keep on eating. I know -- I've experienced it. And when the urge is upon you, the food need not even be particularly good.

Overcoming hunger? That's only half the battle.

[g.johnson]

But mine is the real question for most people since the reason few stay on diets is because they're always hungry. If hunger can be suppressed then no conscious effort to reduce calory intake will be necessary.

Uh oh. You sound like a thin person. Are you a thin person?

Chronic overweight and eating when not hungry go together like, well, soup and sandwich, shall we say? Not being hungry has never stopped me from eating -- unless I put my mind to it and *decide* not to eat because I don't need it. But the mere absence of hunger is hardly a factor.

Thin? Christ, no.

Let me repeat again the wise words of Brillat-Saverin: "Obesity is the result of the learned ability to eat when one is not hungry." It is certainly not hunger that leads one to finish off the contents of a pot that was intended to serve two meals, or empty a box of chocolates at one sitting. At times there comes an irresistible urge to just keep on eating. I know -- I've experienced it. And when the urge is upon you, the food need not even be particularly good.

I think we have a confusion of terms that is probably my fault. By “hungry” I mean only “wanting to eat”. (By “sated”, I mean “not wanting to eat”). You and cakewalk are distinguishing between the desire to eat that you feel after fasting and the desire that compels you, despite having a full belly, to stuff down that last wafer thin mint. I guess that you believe that the former is driven by biology and the latter by habit. I’m not so sure. It seems unlikely that bingeing can be learned behavior in any Pavlovian sense since it leads to discomfort and hence should discourage repetition. I suspect that what we are seeing is the result of conflicting biological mechanisms. One that is telling you that you have eaten sufficiently, and another (via the “thrifty gene”?) that is telling you to lay on more fat for the winter. With some people (including me), that second compulsion wins out. With skinny gits, it’s the first. When these mechanisms are understood, it may be possible to modify that balance. And then, as I said, I don’t think there will be any need for conscious calorie counting – it’ll all be done automatically.

[macrosan]

And contrary to what you say, science does appear close to elucidating how hunger and satiety are controlled. (The contentious questions concern the safety and efficacy of different diets, a very different question.)

LOL, and also the safety and efficacy of the science of tampering with one part of the human body, then waiting 20 years or so to see if it might just have an adverse effect on another

[g.johnson]

And contrary to what you say, science does appear close to elucidating how hunger and satiety are controlled. (The contentious questions concern the safety and efficacy of different diets, a very different question.)

LOL, and also the safety and efficacy of the science of tampering with one part of the human body, then waiting 20 years or so to see if it might just have an adverse effect on another

You're proposing 20 year clinical trials?

[jhlurie]

And contrary to what you say, science does appear close to elucidating how hunger and satiety are controlled. (The contentious questions concern the safety and efficacy of different diets, a very different question.)

As much as I hate crediting "Time" with getting anything right... the article in the recent Time Magazine did make a good case for this. Leptin, PYY3-36, and other hormones, and a growing suspicion than our histories of obesity, stress and different foods from our ancestors is damaging the ability of our hypothalamuses to properly trigger what is called "thermogenesis".

That and too much food.

[Marlene]

Weight Watchers works for beginners to proper nutrition etc. You are not required to eat their food, only learn how to eat properly etc. Being overweight is not alway caused by over eating. It can in fact be caused by under eating as well. For example, I've always been lousy at eating breakfast. And then I'd skip lunch too. So by the time I got home from work, I'd be hungry, snack on some chips and then have a fairly fatty kind of dinner, with a few glasses of alcohol. What I learned from WW is that breakfast of some sort is important to "kick start" your body's metabolism. When you don't do this, your body goes into "hibernation" and starts to store fat because it thinks it's not going to get any food.

And I agree, I don't have to be hungry to eat. It does become a matter of discipline to say, I'm not hungry, I don't need to eat that.

And while most others are "diets" , meaning there is an end to the "diet" at some point, weight watchers really is a lifetime way of eating.

There is something to be said for people who need the "committment" of attending meetings. I use a personal trainer for the same reason. I have an appointment, so I have to go. Otherwise, I could quite easily talk myself out of going to the gym. You know when you are going to weigh in every week that there is someone else to account to. I have not attended a meeting in 5 years, but I still keep the weight off by following the principles. I pretty much eat what I want now, or at least plan for those nights when I know I'm going to be overindulging.

And I still hate to eat breakfast, but I manage to get a high-protein, low carb shake into me.

[stagis]

I did well on Atkins' diet, and maybe for a couple of reasons: When I started on it (after reading the book - this is about 2 years ago), I was on a 'traditional' low-cal, low-fat diet (one of many!). Y'know? I get up in the morning and make BACON and EGGS!!!! AS MUCH AS I WANT!!! Woohoo! It just tasted SO good..... Anyway, I stuck it pretty religiously with my own take on the 'rules'... I will NOT give up coffee for anybody except my doctor, I LIKE bourbon, etc... But other than those little differences, I did it.

Coincidentally, I had physicals before and after starting. Weight after 3 months was down 40-something pounds (I started at 215...fatfatfat), cholesterol was down 15 points (started at 190...not horrible), and blood pressure was like 112/70...it was 120/70 before.

Exercise is difficult - I've got MS, and just getting outta bed some mornings is difficult, let alone 2 miles before breakfast. My easiest option is dieting, and Atkins works for me. After about 4 months or so, I slowly modified what I was eating to get some 'health' back into it as well as treats - I mean, how many deviled eggs can you eat? I gained maybe 5 pounds over the next few months, then stabilized.....

'Course, recently I gave up completely and could realy use to lose about 15 pounds..... Praise the Lord and pass the bacon!!!!!

[macrosan]

You're proposing 20 year clinical trials?

Well, my first choice is that they don't release products operating at genetic level until and unless there is absolute scientific agreement that all the fundamentals are understood, and that all the inter-relational and long-term effects are at least identified.

My second choice would be 20 year clinical trials.

[g.johnson]

Well, my first choice is that they don't release products operating at genetic level until and unless there is absolute scientific agreement that all the fundamentals are understood, and that all the inter-relational and long-term effects are at least identified.

Do you mean gene therapy? Who's talking about gene therapy? (No one has got it to work yet anyway.) If you understand the mechanisms you can intervene at any level. You can take hormones (or other signaling proteins) or drugs that block hormones. You can use drugs that up- or down-regulate the production of hormones. You can take drugs that block uptake of hormones. You can take drugs that block carbohydrate receptors in the pancreas. There are potentially many ways in which you could reduce feelings of hunger or increase satiety. There is no a priori reason to suppose that such drugs would be any more likely to produce unforeseen side effects than beta blockers or the histamine antagonists you take for heartburn and allergies.

[John Whiting]

My second choice would be 20 year clinical trials.

Mine as well. Whatever the outcome I'll probably be dead.

[Wilfrid]

Indeed. Give me a laboratory rat and I'll soon find a way to spoil his appetite.

[g.johnson]

Indeed.  Give me a laboratory rat and I'll soon find a way to spoil his appetite.

I on the other hand have a more noble aim.

[Wilfrid]

There's Nina's dinner.

[macrosan]

Sorry Glyn, that was an instant leap of my connective neural thingummyjigs We had just indirectly referred (in my mind) to the recent "discovery" of the satiety gene, and many of us can already hear the cash registers ringing at the pharmaceutical companies

Having said that, my own view is that drugs which significantly affect hormones should ideally undergo 20-year clinical trials, but I also recognize that the cost of this would likely prohibit research. Hormonal biology is not a well-enough understood science (in my opinion) for such drugs to be used except in the treatment of threatening diseases. Hormone replacement treatment was not such a case for most women for whom it was prescribed, and the adverse effects of HRT are now starting to show themselves (20 years later ?).

I certainly feel that such drugs should not be used to "tinker" with a person's appetite unless that person has a threatening appetite disorder which cannot be treated in any other way.

[g.johnson]

There's Nina's dinner.  

More amouse bouche.

[22tango]

I believe in the Julia Child "diet":

http://www.diabetes.org/main/community/for...ast/page562.jsp

Child loves to use butter and cream in her recipes, bucking the national trend for low-fat, healthy living. Her secret of staying trim, despite the rich diet? "I don't eat so much butter and cream -- just enough! And no snacking. That's very important."

[phaelon56]

I skimmed the Atkins book at one time and actually read most of Protein Power. I was skeptial at best until a co-worker who I trusted and respected told me of his epxeriences with such an eating regimine. I tried it and by the 4th or 5th day was feelign so faint, fatigued and overall horrible that I scuttled the whole thing. Fast forward a year or two.... I'm finally back up in the 245 lb range (at 6' 1 1/2") and although friends and coworkers don't think I look heavy (I'm one of those rare people who can carry that kind of weight and look "average" in size), I feel the burden of the weight and don't wish to invest in new clothes. This was late May 2002. I was embaring on a ten day trip to Belize that turned out to be very physically active and there was little in the way of junky food or snacks readily available. I ate a healthy diet, lost a few punds and decided upon my return to try something that would work for ME.

Here's what I'm doing:

Breakfast:

an iced latte with non-fat milk or a regular latte with 1% (both are the large size).

A bowl of fruit salad - I make my own with whatever fruit looks good and tastes good. I don't give a hoot what Atkins or anyone else says about carb content of fruit types. I typically use strawberries, blueberries, cantalope. watermelon, oranges, nectarines, plums and occasionally peaches and apples. Make a giant bowl once every 5-6 days and throw in a bit of cranberry juice to help the flavors meld. Sometimes I mix the fruit salad with some non-fat yogurt (unflavored - the Stonyfield farms brand is really good - very rich and creamy).

If I'm in a hurry I sub a Powerbar for the fruit salad. It's the only protein bar product I've tried that tastes okay and isn't just a candy bar in disguise

Lunch: a bowl of non-cream based soup and a piece of fruit or at work I bring sliced turkey, ham or roast beef and just roll up slices of it to eat along with some more fruit salad. I also keep a bag of baby carrots around to munch on.

Dinner: usually chicken, fish or beef - prepared in whatever way is tasty but I try to avoid butter or cream heavy sauces. A decent size hunk of meat with a veggie or a small salad and a small portion of starch like rice, potato or cous-cous. A bit later in the evenign I'll have something like an Italian ice as a snack/dessert.

The keys for me are these: I eat things that I like and taste good. I dine out usually twice per week and have a slice or two of bread at that meal. I get whatever I want when dining out and ALWAYS cut my entree in hal;f and bring home the uneaten half for the freezer - it serves as a dinner meat portion the following week. I never allow myself to walk around feeling hungry, on occasion I splurge and have a really nice dessert out somewhere. Once in a rare while I grab a slice of pizza but it's rare. If I feel like I'm lacking energy I start eating a bit more. I try to keep something moderately healthy around to snack on, such as toasted soy nuts or wasabi peas.

What I gave up: ordering sausage and onion pizza once a week from my favorite pizzeria (with gloppy whole milk mozzarella), a large (I mean really large) bowl of low fat ice cream or frozen yogurt almost every night, snack crackers, pretzels, chips, fried foods in general, cookies, cakes and rolls, large portions of rice or potatoes at lunch and/or dinner, home fries, topast and bagels/buns for breakfast....

What I gained: after a few weeks of stringent eating (almost no bread, potatoes or rice and no fried foods but penty of fruits and lean meats), I began to feel full wiht less food and my craqvings for the stuff that porks me out started to wane. Miraculously enough I also lost my sweet tooth to some extent. It hasn't disappeared and I still love desserts but I no longer have that craving that can can only be satisfied by a quick Snickers Bar or some such thing. I have gotten a better appreciation for the meats and fruits (and some veggies).

Is it working? I started "healthier" eating in late May and started my current mode of eating around early June. My weight has gone from 245 lbs to 215 and my rate of loss hasnow gone to one pound per week rather than two. I managed to take a ten day vacation and not gain any weight, I continue to enjoy what I eat and my cholesterol has stayed the same (at 220 it needs to come down but hopefully exercise will effect that). I did NOT adopt the Atkins policy of eating anything and everything regardless of fat content. I avoid fatty meats such as pork sausage and bacon, limit my use of butter and cheese and try to eat nuts sparingly. I believe in balance in my eating and more importantly that I should eat what I like within reason. I have not yet counted calories but have found this eating regimine to be so effective that at one point I was actually falling BELOW the daily caloric count I need for my body to function. This is not healthy and I quickly discovered it because my energy began flagging. The reason I mention this is that I was NOT feeling excessively hungry - evidence that eating the right way can satisfy our needs and our taste buds.

[IsItSoupYet?]

In the store where I work, I can always tell who is on the Atkins: their shopping carts contain : pork rinds, mayonnaise, cheese, beef, butter, Atkins shakes, Atkins baking mix, Atkins bars. One couple whose progress I have been casually following load up on the above. They've even taught a class on the low carb lifestyle.

Both are overweight. Neither appears to have lost very many pounds.

It's all very confusing...

Being somewhat porky these days, I decided to try Atkins, and when I found low-carb convenience food in the local health food store (oh, the irony), I was a happy camper--until I started eating it. Low-carb pasta is DISGUSTING; Atkins' brand of low-carb bread tastes pretty good but is horrifically expensive; the shakes and bars are awful. The only two low-carb convenience foods I've found that I really like are Atkins chocolate chocolate chip muffin mix and Lo-Carb cinnamon frozen dessert.

Nowadays I stick to meat (chicken and turkey mostly, and I do eat the skin), veggies (with butter), salad and some fruit; I eat three meals a day and I go to the gym six days a week. Lo and behold, I feel better and I'm losing weight--and that includes a weekly pasta/pizza/Mexican binge. I find that eating this way controls my appetite and my food obsession. I tried low-fat and was hungry all the time. Amazing what a little fat can do, eh? Limiting your carbs does work, but Atkins' approach is draconian and inevitably boring. And somehow I don't believe that an occasional apple or starfruit is going to end up on my ass ...

[Huevos del Toro]

Moderation! clickety

The French eat fatty foods yet remain slim (on the average). Why? Small portions. They laugh at us because we still adhere to the "clean your plate" and "all you can eat" philosophies.

Get over it!

Eat what you like but small portions. Diets, per se, are self defeating. A change in life style is the only thing that works (in the long run).

Rant over! Thank you so much.

Edited December 6, 2002 by Huevos del Toro (log)