General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Eric Blackway: Weight-Loss Program

Started by Eric · · Last activity · 105 posts · 1,367 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
10 November 2007
Last activity
22 November 2007
Original author
Eric
Posts
105
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,367
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 105
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The "calory is a calory" mindset. Doug, you may have a point, and so
    may Atkins, but in my experience both following up Atkins citations to
    Keckwick and Pawan articles in musty old volumes of medical journals
    and within the laboratory of my own body, Atkins has indeed been
    proven right in the past and you haven't.

    That's one thing that I have to say about Atkins. Despite what I
    consider to be his dismissive attitudes regarding the psychosomatic
    aspects of hunger management, if you can find the journals, he doesn't
    lie and prevaricate when he quotes research. At the time I checked out
    his work, I had access to an international medical library with back
    issues of primary journals going back 50 years, not even microfilm
    copies. When I checked out all the comments made in my little yaller
    book, there was just one that I couldn't find, on page 68,
    Pilkington's dismissive conclusion in Lancet.

    And finally, in the long term, any approach leads to failure 95% of
    the time, according to every study I've heard tell of. If that was all
    that was stopping me, I would have laid down and died long ago. It's
    only served to convince me that conventional wisdom is dead wrong,
    perhaps only when it comes to me, perhaps when it comes to everyone.
    Yes, those participate in these studies in programs that allow them to
    lose weight and build up exercise programs gradually tend to keep it
    off better than those who don't. Even in those cases, unless I
    misremember, the differences between success rates are something like
    99% failure for fast-lowers and 92% failure for slow-losers. Hardly
    the glowing recommendation. I've got dial-up and I write these posts
    off-line, so forgive me for not googling that. I also believe there
    are alternative explanation for the reasons why these success stories
    exist, but let's not get into that today.

    -------------------------------

    In the category of too unbelievable to be fiction, can you believe
    that during the Korean War, the Army used to recruit doctors in the
    New England Journal of Medicine with promises that they would have
    free access to golf course at their bases abroad?

    ---------------------------------

    I've also lost a pound a day on a strict, high-carb Pritikin program,
    600 calories a day netted me 90 pounds in about 100 days, but a diet
    like that cannibalizes your muscle tissue like nobody's business, does
    not suppress your appetite at all, and once your attention wavers just
    a touch, you could end up like me back then, a 17-year-old male
    bulimic, binging and purging to try to keep the weight off.

    When I started weight-lifing in my senior year of high school, I was
    already 6'2" but I was ridiculously flabby all over, and it was
    difficult to bench-press 100 pounds. Since back in those days I walked
    three miles every day, my legs had adapted and I could still squat a
    reasonable amount, but 100 pounds, for a 17-year-old, especially a
    larger kind of guy like me, is ridiculous.

    On the whole, bulimia was not all that bad an experience and not at
    all a scary one (I never have to deal with that "want to puke but
    can't feeling"😉 but it's a fundamentally unsound place to be in your
    head. In my view, it makes you take on a certain idea of your body
    that's hard to get rid of, which does indeed turn you into a conceited
    piece of [censored].

    Years later, on my first trip through a mental hospital, the fact that
    I found it easy to talk about my experience shocked the group
    therapist. At the time, I was 22 and weighed about 220, and much of
    the group was made up of habitual substance abusers (the norm in a
    mental hospital) and a handful of depressive anorexics. I felt stupid
    even feeling remotely ashamed surrounded by these poor women. It took
    one trip to the school counselor, just one admission to another human
    being, and I was in reverse away from a bad place, lucky me. It turned
    these poor women into frightening caricatures of humanity.

    It was individual therapy that brought me face to face with my money
    problem, the fact that I was raised poor and that has really created a
    series of dysfunctional spending habits in me. And it was therapy with
    a guy who didn't have a PhD, who just kept talking to me until the
    time came when he forced me to look straight on at my problems, at my
    ballooning debt and health-care costs, at the options available to me,
    at the built-up anxiety so terrible that I couldn't face it.

    This group is very much already helping me in that way. Even the
    occasional snide and the very few ignorant comments go a long way: by
    upping my determination to prove them wrong. Some of you have
    extremely good suggestions, and by reading and contributing to this
    thread, you've already offered me something new, a forum where I get
    to connect with people who know something about my problem, where talk
    can just happen.

    --------------------------------

    I'm glad finally someone asked about exercise. I run for half-an-hour
    every day. There is absolutely nothing like running to take fat off,
    from what a Navy doc once explained to me, the continued jarring
    impacts just beat hell out of your flab and force dissolving fat
    tissue to aerate. When it's time, I'll get back to judo, which I
    started doing years ago overseas but had to quit when my schedule went
    to hell.

    For now, anxious not to make the odd neighborhood I live in talk (I
    live in what I would call a suburban residential townhouse condominum
    complex with primarily retirees and yuppies for neighbors, but more
    about that some other time), I go down to my basement with a hand-held
    lap counter and jog back and forth through the rooms until my timer
    beeps. I had to build up to it by walking 10,000 steps a day for a
    while, but I like running, even though the kind of running I'm
    detailing is not all that fun, unlike running a consistent route
    through a large park as the seasons change, which, as you build that
    good habit, can truly become one of life's finest pleasures.

    Again, I got into running overseas, just after I turned down the Navy.
    If you had told me when I was fifteen that I would someday enjoy
    running, the overweight teenager that I was could have spent weeks
    patiently trying to convince you that it would be impossible.

    ---------------------------------------

    Jackie, once again you have handed me exactly what I need to know.
    Thank you.

    ----------------------------------------

    Roger, I don't agree with you that cutting back on carbs will control
    appetite for me. It cures the worst of the hunger pangs, but for me,
    given my open mental issues concerning food, and I suspect for quite a
    few dieters, few of us actually eat as much as we do simply for the
    biochemical reasons Atkins would like us to believe. But it's going to
    take some time and thinking to properly present my argument for that,
    so I'll save that for another day.

  2. Regular Splenda in a box or bag is 16 carbs/cup.

    Eric wrote:
    |
    | Yes, I do use one packet. The product is called Splenda Quick Pack,
    | and one packet of it equals a cup of sugar. The whole packet weights 4
    | grams. The product code is 2277620051.
    |
    | But thank you for making me look at the label again. The nutrition
    | information is for a serving, which is 1/40th of the packet, states
    | that it contains less than 1 gram of total carbyhydrates, so I can't
    | be absolutely sure that I'm getting less than 4 total grams of
    | carbyhydrates per packet. I may have to take FOB's advice and cut it
    | out completely.

  3. Eric wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Yes, I do use one packet. The product is called Splenda Quick Pack,
    and one packet of it equals a cup of sugar. The whole packet weights


    4

    Quoted message said:

    grams. The product code is 2277620051.

    But thank you for making me look at the label again. The nutrition
    information is for a serving, which is 1/40th of the packet, states
    that it contains less than 1 gram of total carbyhydrates, so I can't
    be absolutely sure that I'm getting less than 4 total grams of
    carbyhydrates per packet. I may have to take FOB's advice and cut it
    out completely.

    I know I'm missing something here, but if the nutrition info per
    serving is 1/40th of the packet, and assuming less than 1 gram per
    serving, probably pretty close to a gram though, where do you even
    come close to less than 4 total grams in the packet?

    Cheri

  4. Eric said:

    I'm glad finally someone asked about exercise. I run for half-an-hour
    every day. There is absolutely nothing like running to take fat off,
    from what a Navy doc once explained to me, the continued jarring
    impacts just beat hell out of your flab and force dissolving fat
    tissue to aerate.

    That's an interesting theory. Remember those things that were popular a
    few decades ago, where you stood inside this wide belt and leaned back,
    and then it shook the [censored] out of you? I think they were before my
    time, but I've seen pictures. Seems like they were based on the same
    principle, but I thought it turned out to be bogus.

    --
    Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

  5. Eric said:

    Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat 40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two
    days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I
    remember why I hate digital scales.

    You've kicked probably 6.5 lbs of fluid tied to glycogen stored in
    your
    liver. It's nice to see the scale move, but let's not get mental here.
    Wait
    until the end of week 2, then start counting the weight lost.

    Quoted message said:

    Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat
    diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher,
    but if I cut out the psyllium husk laxative (as an initial measure,
    it's also recommended by Atkins, on page 273) and the milk (ever tried
    to drink vanilla-flavored protein powder mixed with water?)

    Uhm, if the purpose is to ditch real food, you can't really complain
    about taste, right? Lots of people slug down whey and water (self
    included). It takes getting used to, but if you're in the "dump real
    food
    and get into diet mentality" why not go there?

    Quoted message said:

    And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie
    beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to
    make two quarts, the Splenda costs 20 cents and the unsweetened mix
    packet goes for 24 cents. When a 20-oz bottle of spring water costs as
    much as a 20-oz bottle of soda, and if you buy by the two-or-three
    liter you'll have flat soda in a New York minute, you've got to think
    outside the box.

    Think in the box first. Dump the kool-aid and the splenda. Now, you're
    cost free. Get a 1L water bottle (you might own one already) and fill
    it
    with, get ready, tap water. It's like kool-aid+splenda only it
    contains
    fewer chemicals. A lot fewer depending on where your tap is.

    Quoted message said:

    So the only thing that is not "according to Atkins," as it were, about
    my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn
    day for a long time.

    Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that
    during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable
    matter daily. So, you're not according to Atkins. Like it makes a
    difference. DANDR isn't the Bible, and even that's less than
    infalible.

    Quoted message said:

    I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion
    control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this
    diet. It is also a part of my experience that hunger is indeed a
    great equalizer when you're eating so few calories every day. And as I
    mentioned in my first post, in the developed world, only the veteran
    dieter ever truly finds out what it means to be hungry.

    I submit that only the veteran dieter understands how to diet
    unsuccesfully by any long term measure. Keep doing what you've
    done and you will get what you've always gotten.

    Quoted message said:

    The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I
    have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue
    on a strict low-carb, low calory diet than on a strict high-carb, low
    calory diet. Secondly, a strict low-carb diet does clamp down a good
    bit on hunger and causes your mouth and stomach to re-evaluate its
    attitude regarding portion size.

    Your diet is wacky because:
    1- you need a laxative to move the food out.
    2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food
    3- Kool Aid seems integral to the variety aspect.
    4- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again.
    5- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again.
    I repeated 4 because it's really essential that you get this in.

    If you do the same junk you've always done, you will get the same
    junk you've always gotten.

    I'm gonna kick some reality here. If you lose 90 lbs in 90 days,
    you're going to be losing muscle in there with the fat. You are not
    going to shed 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories and
    running
    3 miles a day. That's reality. It sucks.
    Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of
    cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue
    to eat cheese and run 3 miles a day for any extended period of time,
    so you're going to regain 90 lbs of fat, possibly in 75 days, and
    you're
    going to be worse off for the effort. You might even gain 100 or 120
    lbs
    of fat, possibly in 75 days, and then you'll be really happy, I guess.

    The ultimate question is not one of losing. It's one of maintaining
    your
    losses. If you're going to be there in 90 days (you're not, but let's
    assume for the sake of discussion), what will you be doing in February
    to make sure you're not going back on Cheese, Flax and Kool-Aid
    in June?

  6. Cheri' gserviceatinreachdotcom said:

    Eric wrote in message

    <[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Yes, I do use one packet. The product is called Splenda Quick Pack,
    and one packet of it equals a cup of sugar. The whole packet weights


    4

    Quoted message said:

    grams. The product code is 2277620051.

    Quoted message said:

    But thank you for making me look at the label again. The nutrition
    information is for a serving, which is 1/40th of the packet, states
    that it contains less than 1 gram of total carbyhydrates, so I can't
    be absolutely sure that I'm getting less than 4 total grams of
    carbyhydrates per packet. I may have to take FOB's advice and cut it
    out completely.

    I know I'm missing something here, but if the nutrition info per
    serving is 1/40th of the packet, and assuming less than 1 gram per
    serving, probably pretty close to a gram though, where do you even
    come close to less than 4 total grams in the packet?

    Cheri

    Well, I feel better now, so here goes.

    The whole packet weighs four grams. If the product were pure glucose,
    I couldn't be getting more than four grams.

  7. Aaron Baugher said:
    Eric said:

    I'm glad finally someone asked about exercise. I run for half-an-hour
    every day. There is absolutely nothing like running to take fat off,
    from what a Navy doc once explained to me, the continued jarring
    impacts just beat hell out of your flab and force dissolving fat
    tissue to aerate.

    That's an interesting theory. Remember those things that were popular a
    few decades ago, where you stood inside this wide belt and leaned back,
    and then it shook the [censored] out of you? I think they were before my
    time, but I've seen pictures. Seems like they were based on the same
    principle, but I thought it turned out to be bogus.

    --
    Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

    Nope. Massage and sauna treatments as part of weight loss are still
    alive and well, just not part of the American way.

    But that aside, running does miracles.

  8. Hollywood said:
    Eric said:

    Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat 40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two
    days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I
    remember why I hate digital scales.

    You've kicked probably 6.5 lbs of fluid tied to glycogen stored in
    your
    liver. It's nice to see the scale move, but let's not get mental here.
    Wait
    until the end of week 2, then start counting the weight lost.

    You have a point.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat
    diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher,
    but if I cut out the psyllium husk laxative (as an initial measure,
    it's also recommended by Atkins, on page 273) and the milk (ever tried
    to drink vanilla-flavored protein powder mixed with water?)

    Uhm, if the purpose is to ditch real food, you can't really complain
    about taste, right? Lots of people slug down whey and water (self
    included). It takes getting used to, but if you're in the "dump real
    food
    and get into diet mentality" why not go there?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie
    beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to
    make two quarts, the Splenda costs 20 cents and the unsweetened mix
    packet goes for 24 cents. When a 20-oz bottle of spring water costs as
    much as a 20-oz bottle of soda, and if you buy by the two-or-three
    liter you'll have flat soda in a New York minute, you've got to think
    outside the box.

    Think in the box first. Dump the kool-aid and the splenda. Now, you're
    cost free. Get a 1L water bottle (you might own one already) and fill
    it
    with, get ready, tap water. It's like kool-aid+splenda only it
    contains
    fewer chemicals. A lot fewer depending on where your tap is.

    Quoted message said:

    So the only thing that is not "according to Atkins," as it were, about
    my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn
    day for a long time.

    You've got a point.

    Quoted message said:

    Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that
    during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable
    matter daily. So, you're not according to Atkins. Like it makes a
    difference. DANDR isn't the Bible, and even that's less than
    infalible.

    Uhm, (no...I'm not going to indulge in your brand of sarcasm tonight,
    Hollywood. Maybe another time.)

    Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done
    to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting.

    "The beautiful fact about fasting and the Atkins diet is that one can
    use the /Induction/ diet to creat a maximal outpouring of FMS and
    then, without an interruption, switch into fasting without going
    through the hunger/discomfort that characterizes the first two days of
    a fast." (Page 233)

    Flip to the next page and have a look at the information. I've already
    cited the footnote in an earlier post.

    If you're willing to suffer the hunger pangs, there is no restriction
    offered against doing it. No, I'm not getting into BDK the easy way,
    through the Induction diet, but I am doing much the same thing.

    Furthermore, drastic cuts in food intake in the first stages of low
    calory dieting seem to provide the most fodder for much of the
    controversy surrounding the practice. Dr. Willard Krehl's opposition
    to dieting (pg. 71) is Atkins's reference for that, and if you look at
    the German studies (pg. 73). The study I remember best, Pilkington's
    published in Lancet (pg. 67), makes Atkins's case even better. He does
    "blithely eliminate the first 12 days of the low-carbohydrate from
    their mathematics). If I remember correctly, the side-by-side charts
    all start twelve days later and the fact that the first twelve days
    are missing are referred to in a footnote.

    As far as DANDR goes, I am not saying that _New Diet Revolution_ is
    the Bible. I have dial-up access, limited time to spare for on-line
    research, and I know the book pretty well. A no point have I claimed
    that this book is the Bible, but you've got to start from somewhere,
    don't you?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion
    control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this
    diet. It is also a part of my experience that hunger is indeed a
    great equalizer when you're eating so few calories every day. And as I
    mentioned in my first post, in the developed world, only the veteran
    dieter ever truly finds out what it means to be hungry.

    I submit that only the veteran dieter understands how to diet
    unsuccesfully by any long term measure. Keep doing what you've
    done and you will get what you've always gotten.

    I've never tried what I'm trying now.

    And I understand that my writing style seems to offend you. I do use
    terms like "I submit" in my post because it doesn't sound as
    pretentious to me as it does to you. Fine. I'll try to tone it down,
    but it's hard sometimes, for reasons I'll probably discuss someday.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I
    have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue
    on a strict low-carb, low calory diet than on a strict high-carb, low
    calory diet. Secondly, a strict low-carb diet does clamp down a good
    bit on hunger and causes your mouth and stomach to re-evaluate its
    attitude regarding portion size.

    Your diet is wacky because:
    1- you need a laxative to move the food out.
    2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food
    3- Kool Aid seems integral to the variety aspect.
    4- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again.
    5- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again.
    I repeated 4 because it's really essential that you get this in.
    If you do the same junk you've always done, you will get the same
    junk you've always gotten.

    And now, here we are again. You're being overtly offensive, Hollywood,
    and it gets worse throughout your post. I'm trying hard to be nice.

    I've already explained the use of a laxative in the initial stages of
    the diet (as Atkins recommends) and I've managed to cut that out
    already.

    On the cheese thing, I can understand why you would feel that eating
    half-a-pound of cheese a day is wacky. I find some of the Fat Fast
    recommendation listed in Atkins equally wacky, e.g.: "five handfuls of
    macadamia nuts (one ounce each), per day, or the equivalent." (pg.
    235)

    I find your ability to slug down whey and water unusual, myself. I've
    never done it, and at the first opportunity, I found a way to get
    around it. You've got to admit, mixing milk protein in with water and
    choking it down can be more than a bit nasty.

    If I have to do it again, well, Eye of the Tiger!

    At some point, I promise I will explain my reason for doing it better,
    OK? For now, let me just say that it serves four purposes, rigorous
    portion control, behavioral modification, easy access, and low cost.

    And finally, the Kool-Aid. Damn, the heat is on the Kool-Aid. By the
    way, I don't do much in the way of variety. Tropical Punch all the way
    for me. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, give me some time,
    OK?

    Quoted message said:

    I'm gonna kick some reality here. If you lose 90 lbs in 90 days,
    you're going to be losing muscle in there with the fat. You are not
    going to shed 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories and
    running
    3 miles a day. That's reality. It sucks.

    Quoted message said:

    Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of
    cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue
    to eat cheese and run 3 miles a day for any extended period of time,
    so you're going to regain 90 lbs of fat, possibly in 75 days, and
    you're
    going to be worse off for the effort. You might even gain 100 or 120
    lbs
    of fat, possibly in 75 days, and then you'll be really happy, I guess.

    OK, the "you'll be really happy" stuff is getting to me, Hollywood. I
    don't know why you cannot communicate your convictions without trying
    to insult the person you're addressing. Maybe you had a bad day at
    work. But what did I say to you? Is the fact that I disagree with you
    on some issues so difficult to discuss without hostility?

    I know that the losing fat versus muscle issue is difficult to digest.
    But pull away from your anger and look at the research.The ketogenic
    diet Benoit used made his dieters lose 14 pounds of fat, out of 14.5
    pounds total (page 70).

    Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate
    the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is
    essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in
    carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not
    necessarily a high fat diet.

    It's worth testing, isn't it? And since I have only one test
    subject...

    It's a bit more complicated than all that, but let's let it be for
    now.

    Quoted message said:

    The ultimate question is not one of losing. It's one of maintaining
    your
    losses. If you're going to be there in 90 days (you're not, but let's
    assume for the sake of discussion), what will you be doing in February
    to make sure you're not going back on Cheese, Flax and Kool-Aid
    in June?

    Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. How about I focus on losing it
    now and start working on my maintenance diet about 20 pounds out?

    And please don't attack me again, especially without looking at the
    matter more carefully? I've got a feeling that something else caused
    the insulting tone of this post than what it might be taken to be, if
    your last post is anything to go by. I could use your help, even as a
    voice of caution, especially since you obviously know a lot about low-
    carb dieting.

  9. FOB said:

    Don't worry about children reading this, it's way too boring for them.

    Great. But half the group seems to be convinced that I'm killing
    myself through cheese and Kool-Aid,
    some misled indiivdual put a rating on this thread, and even without
    whistling up some sharks and The Black Pearl I'm a bit worried that
    some kid as desperate to lose weight as I was might read this.

  10. Eric, you've set your goals and you're sticking to them. That's great. Keep
    up the good work. -- Mike

  11. em said:

    Eric, you've set your goals and you're sticking to them. That's great. Keep
    up the good work. -- Mike

    Thank you.

  12. I'm sitting up tonight, as has been all too usual lately (not for any
    reason related to the diet), and just thinking about the overwhelming
    certainty that so many of you have that I will be unable to maintain
    this diet for long.

    It's actually beginning to bother me, which I was hoping it would.

    I understand how well-grounded every comment being made about my being
    able to SUSTAIN the weight loss is.

    I completely agree with you, and as I get down nearer my goal, I'll
    start working on that, hopefully with all of your help. I really don't
    think simple carbyhydrate restriction will work for maintenance, for
    reasons I've detailed elsewhere or will detail later. No, I am damned
    certain that it will involve building, step by step, a series of good
    dietary habits for life.

    That's part of why this diet is as boring as it is. It's not
    mortification of the flesh -- it's behavioral modification. But we'll
    get into psychology later. God knows there's time.

    Where do you people get your staunch certainties that I will never be
    able to sustain this austere diet for long? That no one can, and that
    it lies outside the realm of human endeavor, is the general sense of
    what I've been reading.

    Sometimes, when I'm not feeling too strong, I'm halfway to agreeing
    with you, but in the past, occasionally on even more austere diets
    than this one, I've lost plenty of weight. So every time one of you
    tells me that no one can lose a pound a day for months at a time, no
    way, no how, it's a compliment, even if I don't make it this time.

    It doesn't really mean much, you know. One way or the other, my
    personal struggle with my weight will not be fully decided until I'm
    dead and buried, and neither will yours.

    So I'll just keep on posting my numbers for the next seventy pounds or
    so, and focus almost all my concentration on this one task at hand.
    All of you should feel free to tell me that I'll never make it happen,
    but I'll just keep on posting my numbers.

    If I run into serious health problems, I'll stop the diet and tell
    you, but until then, expect to see those numbers. If I can't keep it
    up, I'll probably just slink away and post no more, and you can all
    agree that you were right. If I backslide even once, I'll probably
    stop too.

    In the meantime, though, those numbers are going up.

  13. Eric said:

    Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done
    to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting.

    Well, not really. The Fat Fast is not part of the normal Atkins
    programs; it's intended for the small minority of folks who don't get
    into ketosis from induction.

    Atkins uses induction to get you into OWL, OWL to get you to
    pre-maintenance and then finally maintenance. That's the main plan.

    I can give a nice long list of criticisms of Atkins; I don't like his
    book much. But the basic plan is pretty damned good if you work the
    stages, though I doubt most folks need all the supplements he insists on
    or the caffeine restrictions.

    Still, it is a plan for *life* in which you start with the basic
    necessary foods, protein/fat sources and vegetables, and add to it as
    tolerated. Can't go too far wrong with that basic plan.

    Quoted message said:

    If you're willing to suffer the hunger pangs, there is no restriction
    offered against doing it. No, I'm not getting into BDK the easy way,
    through the Induction diet, but I am doing much the same thing.

    The objection is to you calling it Atkins.

    I've read Atkins, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, CAD, Zone, Bernstein,
    one of Lyle's books, the FAQ of this newsgroup.

    I use the basic principle of putting some fat-containing protein on my
    plate and filling the rest of the plate with veggies, but am not
    strictly doing any of the official diets and don't call what I'm doing
    after any of those program names. I do my own home-grown version of
    low-carb.

    Quoted message said:

    I've already explained the use of a laxative in the initial stages of
    the diet (as Atkins recommends) and I've managed to cut that out
    already.

    I don't see any problem with using fiber supplements myself. Sure,
    vegetables are highly preferred as a fiber source, what with the
    micronutrients and such, but fiber isn't exactly a *laxative* in the
    sense that milk of magnesia is. Fiber is a noraml food component.

    Quoted message said:

    I find your ability to slug down whey and water unusual, myself. I've
    never done it, and at the first opportunity, I found a way to get
    around it. You've got to admit, mixing milk protein in with water and
    choking it down can be more than a bit nasty.

    I don't care for whey as much, but have no problem knocking down milk
    isolate protein. It's not nasty at all. It's pretty much just powdered
    milk without the lactose. I usually add cream to my protein shakes, so
    they really *are* just milk without sugar.

    I make a mocha shake with coffee and cocoa, a strawberry shake with
    frozen berries, a pudding shake with a quarter package of sugar-free
    instant pudding (a *bit* carby), or just flavor the suckers up with a
    DaVinci syrup.

    I don't find them any nastier than milkshakes made with milk.

    Quoted message said:

    OK, the "you'll be really happy" stuff is getting to me, Hollywood. I
    don't know why you cannot communicate your convictions without trying
    to insult the person you're addressing. Maybe you had a bad day at
    work. But what did I say to you? Is the fact that I disagree with you
    on some issues so difficult to discuss without hostility?

    D00d, if you think this is hostile, well... you ain't been around Usenet
    much. He's being a bit sarcastic at ya, but it's not a flamewar or
    anything.

    Quoted message said:

    Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate
    the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is
    essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in
    carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not
    necessarily a high fat diet.

    You want to look into it a bit more. This is the deal: some amount of
    protein (over 50%) can convert to glucose. A smaller amount of fat
    (around 10%) can convert to glucose.

    There's specific ratios of carb, protein and fat that make a diet
    ketogenic - these have been well-defined for diets for epilectic
    children. Fat having the lowest conversion rate helps the ratios out a
    lot more than protein does; in fact, you can overdo protein and raise bg
    from that.

    Low-carb *and* low-fat is not appetite-suppressing. Google on "rabbit
    starvation" - people subsisting on lean meat don't do well.

    Course, you're eating whole eggs and an amazing amount of cheese, so
    you're not doing low-fat anyways.

    I find it a bit perplexing that you find a 1/2 lb cheese per day to be a
    frugal way to go though. Cheese is pretty much my most expensive
    protein source short of something like scallops or the occasional really
    nice steak. Hamburger or chicken is a lot cheaper than cheese.

    Quoted message said:

    Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. How about I focus on losing it
    now and start working on my maintenance diet about 20 pounds out?

    Maintenance is not trivial; diets that have maintenance built-in do
    better than diets that postpone that.

    I was just reading Lyle say that the other day over on his forum... the
    whole reason he recommends people doing his PSMF eat whole foods is
    cause it's a lot easier to use that as a basis for a permanent diet than
    if you just lived on protein shakes or egg whites or such.

    I'd again suggest his book if you really want to do a fast weight loss
    deal; it's basically still a fad diet, but a lot more logical than most.
    If you really want to cut the calories to the bone and lose as fast
    as possible; his plan makes sense to me.

    Quoted message said:

    And please don't attack me again, especially without looking at the
    matter more carefully? I've got a feeling that something else caused
    the insulting tone of this post than what it might be taken to be, if
    your last post is anything to go by. I could use your help, even as a
    voice of caution, especially since you obviously know a lot about low-
    carb dieting.

    Seriously d00d, get over it - or you'll freak when you get really flamed.

    --
    http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

  14. Eric said:
    FOB said:

    Don't worry about children reading this, it's way too boring for them.

    Great. But half the group seems to be convinced that I'm killing
    myself through cheese and Kool-Aid,
    some misled indiivdual put a rating on this thread, and even without
    whistling up some sharks and The Black Pearl I'm a bit worried that
    some kid as desperate to lose weight as I was might read this.

    This is Usenet; threads are not rated.

    If Google Groups or some other forum you're accessing through is rating
    it, that's just their silly interface; most Usenet interfaces don't have
    ratings anyways.

    Kids looking for something naughty are hardly gonna pick
    alt.support.diet.low-carb as their newsgroup of choice.

    --
    http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

  15. Eric said:

    Great. But half the group seems to be convinced that I'm killing
    myself through cheese and Kool-Aid,

    BTW, it doesn't matter *what* you do; someone is gonna criticize.

    I got flamed a while back on another group for saying I quit Diet Pepsi
    and started drinking stevia-sweetened lemonade and limeade. Apparently,
    I didn't "need" the 2g of carb per serving and stevia is some sort of
    poison that is gonna kill me.

    When you post, you open your life to scrutiny and someone is always
    gonna disagree; either develop a thicker skin or you aren't gonna like
    Usenet much.

    --
    http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

  16. "Eric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I'm sitting up tonight, as has been all too usual lately (not for any
    reason related to the diet), and just thinking about the overwhelming
    certainty that so many of you have that I will be unable to maintain
    this diet for long.

    Hi Eric,

    I hear a lot of self pity in your post. Hey, you've mapped out a plan that
    you think is best for you. It doesn't matter whether I like the plan or not.
    Short-term, you're probably way better off than you would be if you kept the
    weight on. Long-term, you may (or may not) decide to switch your diet around
    a bit, add some veggies and beef maybe. That's me, though, and that's what I
    like to eat.

    Quoted message said:

    If I backslide even once, I'll probably
    stop too.

    [censored]. If you're going to get through this, you have to accept the fact
    that being perfect is impossible. Failure isn't falling down, its staying
    down. Big diff!

    Mike

  17. Eric said:

    Today was a hard one. I hung on, but I really didn't feel up to
    dealing with the brand-new snide comments I was sure were lurking for
    me here in the group. If you've been reading this thread, I'm sure you
    know what I mean. I would have been short and publicly rude, and that
    generally helps nothing and no one. I have to warn everyone that I'll
    probably log on one day, come upon a real piece of [censored]'s [censored]
    comment, and just let go, so once again, if the stories of bulimia and
    mental hospitals have not already convinced you that this is not
    suitable reading for your children, THIS IS AN UNRATED THREAD.

    That's a very nice strawman; hope it takes the blue ribbon at the arts
    and crafts contest! No one's offended by your tales of woe; if you had
    looked through the archives of this group before posting, you'd have
    seen that many people have opened up about their personal trials. I
    suspect that's somewhat in the nature of a group with 'support' in the
    name.

    Here's why you've gotten the responses you've gotten. First, you come in
    here with a visible chip on your shoulder, warning us up front that for
    some reason we're not going to be able to handle the rap you'll be
    putting down. Next time you're at a party, give that a try: instead of
    walking up to people and saying hi, just walk around repeating in a loud
    voice, "Warning: If you talk to me, it will get unpleasant!" You'll be
    very popular.

    Second, you describe an unusual cheese/laxative diet you've already
    designed that seems to be a balancing act between constipation and the
    squirts, claim that has something to do with Atkins, and then say part
    of your motivation is that standard low-carb is too expensive, even
    though cheese is certainly not cheap. Then you act hurt when people
    tell you you're full of [censored].

    Sorry, but we're not your high school guidance counselor; we're not
    going to pat you on the back and say "good job" when you're full of
    [censored]. We're going to correct notions that are dead wrong, offer new
    ideas, and wish you the best. That's real support. Don't take it
    personally; we all had to relearn this stuff after being raised in the
    anti-fat world, and we're all still learning. I've been told I was full
    of [censored] more than once here, and I didn't cry too much. Stick around,
    settle down a little, lower your dukes, and enjoy.

    --
    Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

  18. Eric said:

    On Nov 13, 4:12 pm, Hollywood <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that
    during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable
    matter daily. So, you're not according to Atkins. Like it makes a
    difference. DANDR isn't the Bible, and even that's less than
    infalible.

    Uhm, (no...I'm not going to indulge in your brand of sarcasm tonight,
    Hollywood. Maybe another time.)

    Quoted message said:

    Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done
    to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting.

    My reading (out of date, I'm a protein power life plan person) is that
    fat
    fast is what you do when induction and ongoing weight loss don't work
    for you. I'd submit that you haven't actually gone through the
    Induction,
    much less an attempt at OWL, so with Robert Atkins as your
    cardiologist/weight loss doctor, you wouldn't be where you are. I will
    submit page 271 in the 2002 10th printing paperback (I guess I don't
    have the same one as you afterall, though it's a 1992 copyright as
    well),
    under the heading "None of the Above?" That's where the fat fast is
    is discussed. After we've discussed extreme metabolic resistance,
    a highly disrupted insulin metabolism, prescription drugs, hormone
    therapy, anti-depressants of the SSRI category, NSAIDS, Beta blockers,
    diurectics, hundreds of other drugs (unnamed at press), thyroid
    hormones
    and candida as possible explanations for the weight not coming off.
    After
    all of that, THEN you do the fat fast.

    And that gets back to the core issue. Your goal is to lose very large
    very
    quickly. That's really, well, what everyone wants. It tends not to
    happen
    for very many. And those who do lose very fast have to maintain or
    progressively cut back further on their diets to maintain their
    losses.
    There's no return to thrice weekly fast food gorging. So, this
    mentality of
    "I lose fast or I don't lose" is, well, not constructive for the long
    term. I'm
    sorry, Eric. Someone had to tell you. Without dancing.

    Quoted message said:

    As far as DANDR goes, I am not saying that _New Diet Revolution_ is
    the Bible. I have dial-up access, limited time to spare for on-line
    research, and I know the book pretty well. A no point have I claimed
    that this book is the Bible, but you've got to start from somewhere,
    don't you?

    You can start and stop there, frozen in perpetuity. Or, you can start
    and continue. Your version of DANDR is 15+ years old. A lot of the
    science is a lot better understood now. Some isn't. Protein Power
    is only 12 years old. Protein Power Life Plan, only 7. Men's Health
    Targeted Nutrition Tactics, a mere 2 months old. You can start
    somewhere or you can start somewhere.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I submit that only the veteran dieter understands how to diet
    unsuccesfully by any long term measure. Keep doing what you've
    done and you will get what you've always gotten.

    I've never tried what I'm trying now.

    What I meant was the "lose fast or not at all" mentality. So, you
    haven't done the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid diet before. Perhaps
    you've done the master cleanse.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Your diet is wacky because:
    2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food
    3- Kool Aid seems integral to the variety aspect.
    4- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again.
    5- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again.
    I repeated 4 because it's really essential that you get this in.
    If you do the same junk you've always done, you will get the same
    junk you've always gotten.

    On the cheese thing, I can understand why you would feel that eating
    half-a-pound of cheese a day is wacky. I find some of the Fat Fast
    recommendation listed in Atkins equally wacky, e.g.: "five handfuls of
    macadamia nuts (one ounce each), per day, or the equivalent." (pg.
    235)

    As I've established, by starting with the fat fast, you're essentially
    cutting to the end of the plan, without working the steps to see if
    that's
    warranted. It is, your experiment. And perhaps it's the right one. Who
    am I to say otherwise? But what's the point? If it's to feed the all
    or
    nothing mentality, you've essentially already lost the 95% lottery.

    Quoted message said:

    I find your ability to slug down whey and water unusual, myself. I've
    never done it, and at the first opportunity, I found a way to get
    around it. You've got to admit, mixing milk protein in with water and
    choking it down can be more than a bit nasty.

    Nitrean vanilla + water = not awful upon accomodation.
    Same + 1 TBS DaVinci Syrup = more useful combination
    Core + 1/2 cup berries belnded in = pretty decent
    Core + 1/2 cup ice, stick blended = not too bad either.

    If you go to a gym, and talk to the guys lifting, a lot of them drink
    the water and whey. The milk is a lot of fast sugar, not terribly
    useful. Maybe heavy cream instead, but I don't need anything that
    filling.

    Quoted message said:

    At some point, I promise I will explain my reason for doing it better,
    OK? For now, let me just say that it serves four purposes, rigorous
    portion control, behavioral modification, easy access, and low cost.

    Let's break it down:
    Portion control: Good, but limited long term value due to the limited
    variety of the approach.
    Behavior Mod: And the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid modification serves
    how in the big picture of your life?
    Ease: Fine.
    Low Cost: The "high cost of low prices" extends beyond discussions
    of the societal value of Wal*Mart.

    Quoted message said:

    And finally, the Kool-Aid. Damn, the heat is on the Kool-Aid. By the
    way, I don't do much in the way of variety. Tropical Punch all the way
    for me. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, give me some time,
    OK?

    It's your life. I wouldn't do that, but I'm sure I do stuff you
    wouldn't do
    either.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm gonna kick some reality here. If you lose 90 lbs in 90 days,
    you're going to be losing muscle in there with the fat. You are not
    going to shed 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories and
    running
    3 miles a day. That's reality. It sucks.
    Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of
    cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue
    to eat cheese and run 3 miles a day for any extended period of time,
    so you're going to regain 90 lbs of fat, possibly in 75 days, and
    you're
    going to be worse off for the effort. You might even gain 100 or 120
    lbs
    of fat, possibly in 75 days, and then you'll be really happy, I guess.

    OK, the "you'll be really happy" stuff is getting to me, Hollywood. I
    don't know why you cannot communicate your convictions without trying
    to insult the person you're addressing. Maybe you had a bad day at
    work. But what did I say to you? Is the fact that I disagree with you
    on some issues so difficult to discuss without hostility?

    Many people have put this to you very nicely. It clearly hasn't sunk.
    I
    tried a different tact. I'm sorry. But really, maximize your happiness
    in
    the long term.

    Quoted message said:

    I know that the losing fat versus muscle issue is difficult to digest.
    But pull away from your anger and look at the research.The ketogenic
    diet Benoit used made his dieters lose 14 pounds of fat, out of 14.5
    pounds total (page 70).

    First: when you cite Benoit like gospel, you're citing a
    study with 7 subjects. Seven. But forget Benoit. Let's use logic.
    Calorie math is junk. But still, you're holding 3500-4000 kcal per
    lb of fat. You're looking to dump 90 lbs of fat, so, 315,000 kcals
    of deficit/expenditure, at the bottom end. We figure you were
    eating 3000 kcals per day when you weren't dieting, and now
    you're at 1000. So, 2K/day. 3 miles isn't 1500 kcals.
    http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm
    If you're cranking 10 minute miles, an hour gets you maybe
    1200. And if you're cranking 10 minute miles, and running
    3 miles, you're not doing an hour. So, you're short on your
    pound a day. Never mind the metabolism ramp down or
    the loss of thermic effect. I'm sorry, a seven person study
    doesn't get you there.

    Last thing on Benoit vs. you. 10 days. That's what Benoit's
    7 subjects (or maybe 3-4 subjects) did. Not a long term
    adjustment. So, you can make projections on what would
    have happened on day 11 or 15 or 20, but the further out
    you get, well, your ability to predict goes down. Remember,
    your metabolism makes adjustments. Conserves resources.
    Adapts to it's environment.

    Quoted message said:

    Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate
    the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is
    essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in
    carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not
    necessarily a high fat diet.

    I think you can duplicate Benoit's 14.5 lbs loss in 10 days. I
    would quibble with their finding in that it doesn't seem to factor
    liver glycogen dumping, but the study is from before Woodstock.

    Quoted message said:

    It's worth testing, isn't it? And since I have only one test
    subject...

    You're only 6 behind Benoit. But it's your science experiment.

    Quoted message said:

    And please don't attack me again, especially without looking at the
    matter more carefully? I've got a feeling that something else caused
    the insulting tone of this post than what it might be taken to be, if
    your last post is anything to go by. I could use your help, even as a
    voice of caution, especially since you obviously know a lot about low-
    carb dieting.

    I've voiced caution. You are welcome to throw it to the wind. As I
    explained, I tried a different tact to make an impression on you.
    Maybe
    it worked, maybe not.

    Run your experiment, but always be open to making adjustments. And,
    for the sake of sustainability, of beating the 95% problem, I think
    you're
    gonna have to.

  19. Hollywood said:
    Eric said:

    Hollywood <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that
    during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable
    matter daily. So, you're not according to Atkins. Like it makes a
    difference. DANDR isn't the Bible, and even that's less than
    infalible.

    Quoted message said:

    Uhm, (no...I'm not going to indulge in your brand of sarcasm tonight,
    Hollywood. Maybe another time.)
    Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done
    to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting.

    My reading (out of date, I'm a protein power life plan person) is that
    fat
    fast is what you do when induction and ongoing weight loss don't work
    for you. I'd submit that you haven't actually gone through the
    Induction,
    much less an attempt at OWL, so with Robert Atkins as your
    cardiologist/weight loss doctor, you wouldn't be where you are. I will
    submit page 271 in the 2002 10th printing paperback (I guess I don't
    have the same one as you afterall, though it's a 1992 copyright as
    well),
    under the heading "None of the Above?" That's where the fat fast is
    is discussed. After we've discussed extreme metabolic resistance,
    a highly disrupted insulin metabolism, prescription drugs, hormone
    therapy, anti-depressants of the SSRI category, NSAIDS, Beta blockers,
    diurectics, hundreds of other drugs (unnamed at press), thyroid
    hormones
    and candida as possible explanations for the weight not coming off.
    After
    all of that, THEN you do the fat fast.

    Right. What Eric is doing does include a tiny part of material
    from the Atkins books but it isn't Atkins. I strongly object to
    calling wierd made up plans "Atkins". Call it the "Eric Blackway:
    Weight-Loss Program" as in the subject line and stop calling it
    Atkins and that objection goes away.

    People making up extreme diets like all bacon double cheese
    burgers with no bun and then incorrectly calling it Atkins is a
    major source of bad press. Don't call what you're doing Atkins
    unless you're following the directions, and you give no hint you
    have even considered the long list of requirements for the Fat
    Fast. BTW, folks use the Fat Fast to bust stalls and though
    that's technically an abuse it works just fine - You haven't been
    on enough days to consider stalls.

    Quoted message said:

    And that gets back to the core issue. Your goal is to lose very large
    very
    quickly. That's really, well, what everyone wants. It tends not to
    happen
    for very many. And those who do lose very fast have to maintain or
    progressively cut back further on their diets to maintain their
    losses.
    There's no return to thrice weekly fast food gorging. So, this
    mentality of
    "I lose fast or I don't lose" is, well, not constructive for the long
    term. I'm
    sorry, Eric. Someone had to tell you. Without dancing.

    Several have repeated it. My version was all-or-nothing tends to
    result in nothing.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    As far as DANDR goes, I am not saying that _New Diet Revolution_ is
    the Bible. I have dial-up access, limited time to spare for on-line
    research, and I know the book pretty well. A no point have I claimed
    that this book is the Bible, but you've got to start from somewhere,
    don't you?

    Yet you're citing the book while ignoring the requirements for the
    Fat Fast. That means you came in with a preconceived notion of
    what you want to do and you're using the book as justification.
    That's fine if you don't call what you're doing Atkins, but it is
    certainly not following the directions for what Atkins actually says
    to do.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I've never tried what I'm trying now.

    That's fine. Has it occured to you that you aren't the first and
    that the regulars on ASDLC are reporting to you the results of
    the bunch of people who have tried the Fat Fast or variations
    before you started? Your body, your science experiment
    and all that but don't pretend that the regulars are writing from
    your lack of on-topic experience. If you really believe you will
    do what others have done before you and you will get different
    results, then go ahead and believe it. You discussed that in
    another post. But don't also dismiss the fact that regulars are
    basing their repsonses on prior experience.

    Quoted message said:

    What I meant was the "lose fast or not at all" mentality. So, you
    haven't done the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid diet before. Perhaps
    you've done the master cleanse.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Your diet is wacky because:
    2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food

    The Fat Fast as described in the book suggests cream cheese.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    3- Kool Aid seems integral to the variety aspect.

    And completely switching away from it is extreme. Serving
    sizes tend to be selected to just barely qualify to round down
    to zero so checking the serving size and calling each serving
    0.4 or 0.5 grams is the way to go. Then decide if you want
    to continue using the kool-aid, knowing that lower carb isn't
    better for loss rates (consider the original study had a group
    eating 1000 calories of 90% protein who didn't lose as well
    and they were just as low in carbs as the faster losing 90%
    fat group, thus lower carb isn't all there is too it).

    Quoted message said:

    As I've established, by starting with the fat fast, you're essentially
    cutting to the end of the plan, without working the steps to see if
    that's warranted.

    And that's why I object to calling it Atkins. And don't imagine
    that Eric is the first to come to ASDLC trying something like this.

    Quoted message said:

    Behavior Mod: And the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid modification serves
    how in the big picture of your life?

    This was discussed in another post. Starting extremist and
    then moving towards less extreme, the real Atkins plan as it
    actually appears in the book with 14 days of Induction, moving
    on to OWL and so on thorugh the 4 phases starts less extreme
    and moves towards much less extreme. Does anyone really
    imgine that Dr A failed to try extremist approaches? His plan as
    it is in the book is what it is because it works better longer for
    more than more extreme approaches.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of
    cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue
    to eat cheese and run 3 miles a day for any extended period of time,

    Rate of ketosis changes after about two weeks. It's extremely
    predictable. Folks see dark sticks early, then light beige sticks
    in week 3 and think something is wrong. Nope, that's what happens
    to almost everyone. Roughly two weeks in the body adjusts and
    around the time the water runs out the level of ketosis starts to
    closely match the metabolic burn rate. And loss rates become
    much harder to sustain.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I know that the losing fat versus muscle issue is difficult to digest.
    But pull away from your anger and look at the research.The ketogenic
    diet Benoit used made his dieters lose 14 pounds of fat, out of 14.5
    pounds total (page 70).

    While the mechanism behind lean sparing for high fat low carb is
    not well known, the fact of it is well known to the ASDLC regulars.

    Quoted message said:

    First: when you cite Benoit like gospel, you're citing a
    study with 7 subjects. Seven. But forget Benoit. Let's use logic.
    Calorie math is junk. But still, you're holding 3500-4000 kcal per
    lb of fat. You're looking to dump 90 lbs of fat, so, 315,000 kcals
    of deficit/expenditure, at the bottom end. We figure you were
    eating 3000 kcals per day when you weren't dieting, and now
    you're at 1000. So, 2K/day. 3 miles isn't 1500 kcals.http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm
    If you're cranking 10 minute miles, an hour gets you maybe
    1200. And if you're cranking 10 minute miles, and running
    3 miles, you're not doing an hour. So, you're short on your
    pound a day. Never mind the metabolism ramp down or
    the loss of thermic effect. I'm sorry, a seven person study
    doesn't get you there.

    Last thing on Benoit vs. you. 10 days. That's what Benoit's
    7 subjects (or maybe 3-4 subjects) did. Not a long term
    adjustment. So, you can make projections on what would
    have happened on day 11 or 15 or 20, but the further out
    you get, well, your ability to predict goes down. Remember,
    your metabolism makes adjustments. Conserves resources.
    Adapts to it's environment.

    It's one of many reasons that OWL starts day 15.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate
    the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is
    essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in
    carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not
    necessarily a high fat diet.

    The original fat fast diet had the 90% protein folks lose less
    than the 90% fat folks, and the 90% protein folks lost more
    lean. So yes the high fat aspect is a part of the deal. It's the
    reason folks who don't get into ketosis at 20 grams per day
    get put on the Fat Fast not on the Protein Fast.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    It's worth testing, isn't it? And since I have only one test
    subject...

    You're only 6 behind Benoit. But it's your science experiment.

    And there's the history of folks in the past who tried the same.
    Eric gets to repeat there errors by ignoring that the ASDLC
    regulars use their lessons, or he gets to learn from thier
    experiences. So far, no learning from their experiences.

  20. In article <[email hidden]>, Eric says...

    Quoted message said:


    Where do you people get your staunch certainties that I will never be
    able to sustain this austere diet for long? That no one can, and that
    it lies outside the realm of human endeavor, is the general sense of
    what I've been reading.

    Sometimes, when I'm not feeling too strong, I'm halfway to agreeing
    with you, but in the past, occasionally on even more austere diets
    than this one, I've lost plenty of weight. So every time one of you
    tells me that no one can lose a pound a day for months at a time, no
    way, no how, it's a compliment, even if I don't make it this time.


    Because a lot of us have "been there, done that" on virtually every diet out
    there.

    In the mid 90s, I went to the gym every weekday morning for about 10 months. My
    workouts were 30-40 mins of cardio, and then weights. I drank a protein shake
    for breakfast, another for lunch, and ate a "sensible" dinner.

    In those 10 months, I lost approximately 30 lbs. of fat and my BMI was about 19.
    However, I injured my leg at the gym. I lost the motivation to start back after
    it healed. I started eating [censored] again and gained back way more weight than the
    amount I lost.

    I've got 3 other examples where I lost significant (40+ lbs) amounts of weight
    in my life on different diets. But I always gained it back.

    It appears that you too have crash dieted in the past and then reverted back to
    your previous lifestyle and gained it back. Now you are trying to do the same
    crash diet thing again.

    It doesn't work for the long haul. A diet is only successful if you can stay on
    it and not regain the weight that was lost. Or in my case, to reverse a medical
    condition that could shorten my life.

    My motivation this time is totally different. My glucose level had been rising
    over the years and in August the doctor started talking about Type 2 diabetes
    and putting me on medication.

    I did some reading and study and started LCing. I didn't do the Atkins induction
    phase, I eat vegetables and salads and lots of meat and cheese. I've lost over
    35 lbs in a little over 3 months. My glucose level has dropped to normal levels
    and my doctor is no longer talking about diabetes for me.

    Unlike you, I can't allow myself to say "if I don't make it this time." This is
    something I have to do to give myself the best shot at living a full life.

    With this LC diet I've lost weight. But more importantly, my glucose,
    trygliceride level, my blood pressure have all dropped into the normal ranges.

    I simply can't change the way I'm eating now. My life depends on it.

    I wish you the best.

    Mark

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.