Fat-Fast

[email hidden] wrote:
:: "If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
:: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
:: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some small %
:: of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works."
::
:: I disagree completely. Please show some research or a back-up for
:: this. I'd dying to hear this...

Dying to hear what? You don't believe that lots of folks can lose weight
just by eating only 1000 kcals per day? You claimed you couldn't lose on a
low calorie low fat diet, but you can on a high fat low calorie diet. You
are the classic insulin resistant, metabolically screwed person, for whom a
fat fast is about the only thing that works.

::
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: According to my fitday records, the lowest I ate per day was 900
::::: calories and the highest was 1500 calories. Most days I barely ate
::::: 1100 calories on induction foods.
:::::
::::: True, in the fat fast I'm eating 1000-1050 calories a day, but
::::: that's what, 50-100 calories less than I was eating? Obviously the
::::: calories are not the trigger, but the fat.
:::
::: If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
::: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
::: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some small %
::: of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works.
:::
:::::
::::: If you eat 90% fat, your body is forced to burn the fat on your
::::: body. You can read this in Dr. Atkins book. The fat fast is not
::::: even Dr. Atkins work, but someone elses. Your body is forced into
::::: Lipolysis and Ketosis. Your body burns 1) carbs 2) protein 3) fat.
::::: Atkins works by restricting #1. The fat-fast works by restricting
::::: #1 and #2, leaving your body to HAVE TO burn the fat. I've just
::::: proved it in 4 days where I lost 5 lbs, whereas on induction
::::: levels I lost 2 lbs per week for the past 2 weeks. You still
::::: doubt it?
:::
::: Doubt what? Most folks who are prediabetic lose great on
::: Atkins...those who are highly insulin resistant lose great too. So
::: nothing in surprising. However, I don't believe you lost 5 lbs of
::: real fat in 4 days not after being on induction first...I think you
::: probably lost some of that weight before while you were on
::: induction...it's just now showing up on the scales. Also, you're
::: probably losing some muscle as well as fat.
:::
:::::
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::: Exactly. Buying the Atkins book has helped me tremendously.
:::::::: Well, actually, reading it has. Once you understand that your
:::::::: body burns carbs before fat, you're 90% there. There's a
:::::::: section in the book for people having a hard time losing
:::::::: weight even on the suggested Atkins diet/people on a plateau.
:::::::: I read it, and it made sense. If I'm restricting my carb
:::::::: intake and also lower my protein by eating 75-90% carbs, the
:::::::: body has no choice but to burn the fat.
::::::
:::::: What?
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: So, the mad scientist that I am, I decided to try the fat-fast
:::::::: for the recommended 5 days before going back to induction level
:::::::: carbs. I had solid weight loss on induction, around 2 lbs a
:::::::: week after 3 weeks of hovering around 162, but I wanted to try
:::::::: it anyway.
::::::::
:::::::: And what can I say, i'm amazed. 1,000 calories a day, 75% to
:::::::: 90% of which is fat. In two days I went from 158 to 155. 2
:::::::: days later I'm at 153. My waist is down nearly an inch. For
:::::::: some reason I'm not very hungry at all. Even on my Atkins
:::::::: induction diet, I was only eating 1200-1500 calories a day.
::::::
:::::: ???
::::::
:::::: so, you switched to 1000 kcals/ day of almost all fat...and you
:::::: lost weight. But prior you were eating more kcals.
::::::
:::::: For all you know, you had lost some of that weight prior to
:::::: starting the fat fast....sometimes weight loss happens after you
:::::: would have expected it. This proves nothing.
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: Simply put, the fat-fast works and it's true that while eating
:::::::: more substantially more fat, you will lose weight, primarily
:::::::: fat.
::::::
:::::: Geuses, you're so unthinking it's funny. You only ate 1000 kcal
:::::: / day for 5 days. There's no magic there. You simply eat a
:::::: greater precentage of fat than anything else. But if you really
:::::: believe that you can eat unlimited amounts of fat and lose
:::::: weight, when don't you just up your calories to about 4000 /
:::::: day and see what happens. If you do that, since you're eating
:::::: more fat, you should lose more weight, right?
::::::
:::::: I'm not
:::::::: going to stay on it after today, because 5 days is enough, I'm
:::::::: happy with my regular weight loss on induction, and I want to
:::::::: resume weight-training. The diet is not that enjoyable either,
:::::::: but then again Atkins advises to only do the fat-fast for 4-5
:::::::: days tops.
::::::::
:::::::: FYI, I was on a 1200 calorie diet before I tried Atkins again.
:::::::: I ate 1 or 2 baked potatoes a day as well as other foods but
:::::::: kept my calories down to 1200. In two weeks I went from 172 to
:::::::: 172. :-) <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::::::
::::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::::::: After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone from
:::::::::::: 172 to 153 lbs.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Since Thursday I've been doing the fat-fast as well as
:::::::::::: walking 3 miles a day. Basically I have 2 oz of cream
:::::::::::: cheese, salad, macademia nuts, and egg yolks. Since
:::::::::::: Thursday I've gone from 158 to 153. Not the most fun
:::::::::::: "diet" but it helped me break my plateau (I was hanging
:::::::::::: around 160 for several weeks). Isn't it amazing, that the
:::::::::::: more fat you eat compared to carbs, the MORE fat you lose?
::::::::::
:::::::::: If you eat enough fat, you won't lose weight.
:::::::::
::::::::: Do you understand what you just did?
:::::::::
::::::::: You've just been told that this person ate a very high fat
::::::::: diet for a period of time and lost weight. You respond by
::::::::: saying that if they eat enough fat they won't lose weight.
:::::::::
::::::::: The fact that they succeeded in losing weight by eating a very
::::::::: high fat diet for a period of time cannot be negated simply
::::::::: because you will it so or because of your opinionated "logic".
:::::::::
::::::::: You cannot negate a fact just because you think it ought to
::::::::: be.
:::::::::
::::::::: The very fact that they lost weight on a very high fat diet
::::::::: should make it clear to you that dietary fat does NOT EQUATE
::::::::: to fat gain simply because you think it ought to.
:::::::::
::::::::: Time to rethink your beliefs. Fat does not make fat. Carbs do.
:::::::::
::::::::: TC
:::::::::
::::::::::
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: In six weeks:
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Weight: 172 lbs to 153 lbs
:::::::::::: Waist: 37.5" to just under 35"
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: I'm going to get off the fat-fast on Monday because I
:::::::::::: really want to continue my weight-training.

Heh Roger, Don't you just love the experts like Yes that have been on
Atkins for 6 weeks, are still fat, but now know how it all works? I've
been away a few days, so I didn't see this thread till now, but the
whole thing is absurd from the start:

"After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone from 172 to 153
lbs. Since Thursday I've been doing the fat-fast as well as walking 3
miles a
day. Since Thursday I've gone from 158 to 153. Not the most fun "diet"
but
it helped me break my plateau (I was hanging around 160 for several
weeks).
Isn't it amazing, that the more fat you eat compared to carbs, the MORE
fat
you lose? "

Let's start with the fact that Yes wasn't even having a problem losing
weight or in a stall. Going from 172 to 158 in around 5 to 6 weeks is
excellent for simply following the normal Atkins diet. Temporary
pauses in weight loss for a couple weeks are normal. So, why the need
for a fat fast? Clearly Yes did not come even close to meeting the
guidelines Dr. Atkins had for who should use it and when it is
appropriate.

As for running around proclaiming the wonders of a fat fast to speed
weight loss, here's what Dr. Atkins had to say:

"Let me make it clear that the Fat Fast is actually dangerous for
anyone who is not metabolically resistant."

And Yes completely ignored a key requirement of the fat fast, which is
to restrict calories to 1000 per day. So, apparently Dr. Atkins didn't
think it was appropriate to eat an unlimited amount of an essentially
pure fat diet to lose weight.

My main take on this is that some people have very unreasonable
expectations. IMO, if you're not satisfied dropping 14 lbs in 5 to 6
weeks, then it's likely because you view LC as a quick fix to be gotten
over with as quickly as possible so you can go back to your old ways.
People who succeed at LC learn to enjoy eating LC foods like meat,
fish, many vegetables, and some fruits, and using them in creative and
appetizing ways. They don't go around doing needless fat fasts, with
restrictive menus that would make most people puke.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul said:

Based on your weight and eating of 1000 kcal/day, I don't think you lost 5
lbs in 4 days. No. I can believe that the scale changed by that much, but I
don't believe you really lost that weight in 4 days.

Agreed. A couple of ounces of beef jerky, a dinner of chicken wings with
the requisite salt, or even a dram of decent Scotch will cause the scale
to move 3-4 pounds in a day. He needs to look at real values over a
couple of weeks.
--
********************
Wayne Crannell
Atkins+ 10/21/01
249/142 (9/10/02)
********************

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul said:

Luna wrote:
:: In article <[email hidden]>, <[email hidden]>
:: wrote:
::
::: Eat this for five straight days
:::
::: Breakfast:
:::
::: 4 egg yolks (hard-boiled) with 2 tablespoons of mayo
::: 2 oz cream cheese
::: (600 calories)
::
:: Hah, ok I'm stopping right there, I know I couldn't do this. I feel
:: a bit ill just thinking of eating that much at one sitting.

Split it up into 3 parts and stand between eating each.

Not gonna happen. Low-carb has, apparently, permanently wounded my once
voracious appetite.

As a child, before I was even fat, I once ate a whole package of Fig
Newtons. My record for pizza (don't clearly remember the toppings, but I
know for sure there was sausage and mushrooms, probably more knowing my
dad) was seven slices, and my record for fried chicken was eight pieces
(thighs, legs, and at least 2 breasts)

Way before I started low-carb, about 4 years and 50 pounds ago, I was in
a new relationship with a guy who liked to eat as much as I did. About
a month into our relationship he took me out for breakfast at a little
mom and pop restaurant known for huge portions at a small price. The
bet was that if I could eat a stack of pancakes within an hour, then
breakfast was on him, and if I couldn't, then I was buying.

This stack "only" had three pancakes, but they were so big they were
hanging off the edge of the large plate, and they were so thick and
heavy I couldn't lift the plate with one hand, and it was a struggle
with two. No wimpy crepes, these. Big enough to make two meals for a
trucker, I kid you not. But I was undaunted, up for the challenge, even
pretending a confident swagger while inside I was all " . . . urk.
help!"

I made it through the stack with just 2 minutes to spare. Towards about
the middle it got to be a real struggle, and the last few bites were
almost torturous. I think at the end I actually had my head down on the
table, too tired from swallowing and digesting to hold it up any more.
But ultimately, I triumphed.

The look on his face when I finished was worth the two-day-long painful
constipation. Now, some guys might be a bit disgusted with a woman who
can pack it away like that, but he had nothing but pride and admiration
for me and my accomplishment.

Now, sadly, a task like that is way beyond my abilities. I can't even
imagine eating one pancake, let alone three. But it's not just that I
can no longer pig out on carby foods, even regular food (weird, I now
think of low-carb food as "regular food" cool) has me beaten now. I
keep having to put half my steak in the fridge for the next day! I can
only eat 2 eggs for breakfast, when I used to eat a 3-egg scramble with
cheese, AND bacon, AND toast!

Damn you, low-carb! Never again will I be able to win an "I bet you
can't eat the whole thing" wager. My dreams of being a competitive eater
are over. I coulda been a contender!!

wrong wrong wrong wrong

I already told you my scale was stuck on 158 for 2.5 weeks.

Immediately upon trying to fat fast I lost 5 lbs in 4 days and 1 lb off of
my waist. You can "disbelieve" all you want. It makes you look silly.

And to the previous poster that said I was fat. I'm 5'6" and 153, I'm hardly
fat. You're disrespecting people that are actually badly overweight and
doing atkins.

I just love how people "need" to be right that they ignore facts and
downplay someone elses success.

Btw. I said it's not 100% fat. Nothing is absolute. But the proof is there.
When you don't eat carbs or protein, and eat fat, your body has no choice
but to go into a deep ketosis and therefore.... burn fat. Your brilliance
astonishes me.
"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: You can not believe all you want. I lost 1" off of my waist and 5
:: lbs in 4 days. Of course it's not 100% fat, but the proof is there.
:: If you don't eat carbs, and limit your protein, your body has no
:: choice but to burn fat. You obviously haven't read the book or
:: looked at any research.

Make up your mind...in other posts you said you lost only fat, now you're
saying it's not only fat?

Based on your weight and eating of 1000 kcal/day, I don't think you lost 5
lbs in 4 days. No. I can believe that the scale changed by that much, but
I don't believe you really lost that weight in 4 days. You were probably
holding on to water weight for some reason, and the fat fast freed it up.

If you really think this works, then why don't you do this: Do a fat fast
every other week....one week on and one week off. Just do induction in
the week you're off the fat fast so you don't gain any back. You'll be to
goal in no time as you'll lose at least 10 lbs a month, maybe more!

::
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: According to my fitday records, the lowest I ate per day was 900
::::: calories and the highest was 1500 calories. Most days I barely ate
::::: 1100 calories on induction foods.
:::::
::::: True, in the fat fast I'm eating 1000-1050 calories a day, but
::::: that's what, 50-100 calories less than I was eating? Obviously the
::::: calories are not the trigger, but the fat.
:::
::: If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
::: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
::: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some small %
::: of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works.
:::
:::::
::::: If you eat 90% fat, your body is forced to burn the fat on your
::::: body. You can read this in Dr. Atkins book. The fat fast is not
::::: even Dr. Atkins work, but someone elses. Your body is forced into
::::: Lipolysis and Ketosis. Your body burns 1) carbs 2) protein 3) fat.
::::: Atkins works by restricting #1. The fat-fast works by restricting
::::: #1 and #2, leaving your body to HAVE TO burn the fat. I've just
::::: proved it in 4 days where I lost 5 lbs, whereas on induction
::::: levels I lost 2 lbs per week for the past 2 weeks. You still
::::: doubt it?
:::
::: Doubt what? Most folks who are prediabetic lose great on
::: Atkins...those who are highly insulin resistant lose great too. So
::: nothing in surprising. However, I don't believe you lost 5 lbs of
::: real fat in 4 days not after being on induction first...I think you
::: probably lost some of that weight before while you were on
::: induction...it's just now showing up on the scales. Also, you're
::: probably losing some muscle as well as fat.
:::
:::::
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::: Exactly. Buying the Atkins book has helped me tremendously.
:::::::: Well, actually, reading it has. Once you understand that your
:::::::: body burns carbs before fat, you're 90% there. There's a
:::::::: section in the book for people having a hard time losing
:::::::: weight even on the suggested Atkins diet/people on a plateau.
:::::::: I read it, and it made sense. If I'm restricting my carb
:::::::: intake and also lower my protein by eating 75-90% carbs, the
:::::::: body has no choice but to burn the fat.
::::::
:::::: What?
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: So, the mad scientist that I am, I decided to try the fat-fast
:::::::: for the recommended 5 days before going back to induction level
:::::::: carbs. I had solid weight loss on induction, around 2 lbs a
:::::::: week after 3 weeks of hovering around 162, but I wanted to try
:::::::: it anyway.
::::::::
:::::::: And what can I say, i'm amazed. 1,000 calories a day, 75% to
:::::::: 90% of which is fat. In two days I went from 158 to 155. 2
:::::::: days later I'm at 153. My waist is down nearly an inch. For
:::::::: some reason I'm not very hungry at all. Even on my Atkins
:::::::: induction diet, I was only eating 1200-1500 calories a day.
::::::
:::::: ???
::::::
:::::: so, you switched to 1000 kcals/ day of almost all fat...and you
:::::: lost weight. But prior you were eating more kcals.
::::::
:::::: For all you know, you had lost some of that weight prior to
:::::: starting the fat fast....sometimes weight loss happens after you
:::::: would have expected it. This proves nothing.
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: Simply put, the fat-fast works and it's true that while eating
:::::::: more substantially more fat, you will lose weight, primarily
:::::::: fat.
::::::
:::::: Geuses, you're so unthinking it's funny. You only ate 1000 kcal
:::::: / day for 5 days. There's no magic there. You simply eat a
:::::: greater precentage of fat than anything else. But if you really
:::::: believe that you can eat unlimited amounts of fat and lose
:::::: weight, when don't you just up your calories to about 4000 /
:::::: day and see what happens. If you do that, since you're eating
:::::: more fat, you should lose more weight, right?
::::::
:::::: I'm not
:::::::: going to stay on it after today, because 5 days is enough, I'm
:::::::: happy with my regular weight loss on induction, and I want to
:::::::: resume weight-training. The diet is not that enjoyable either,
:::::::: but then again Atkins advises to only do the fat-fast for 4-5
:::::::: days tops.
::::::::
:::::::: FYI, I was on a 1200 calorie diet before I tried Atkins again.
:::::::: I ate 1 or 2 baked potatoes a day as well as other foods but
:::::::: kept my calories down to 1200. In two weeks I went from 172 to
:::::::: 172. :-) <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::::::
::::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::::::: After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone from
:::::::::::: 172 to 153 lbs.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Since Thursday I've been doing the fat-fast as well as
:::::::::::: walking 3 miles a day. Basically I have 2 oz of cream
:::::::::::: cheese, salad, macademia nuts, and egg yolks. Since
:::::::::::: Thursday I've gone from 158 to 153. Not the most fun
:::::::::::: "diet" but it helped me break my plateau (I was hanging
:::::::::::: around 160 for several weeks). Isn't it amazing, that the
:::::::::::: more fat you eat compared to carbs, the MORE fat you lose?
::::::::::
:::::::::: If you eat enough fat, you won't lose weight.
:::::::::
::::::::: Do you understand what you just did?
:::::::::
::::::::: You've just been told that this person ate a very high fat
::::::::: diet for a period of time and lost weight. You respond by
::::::::: saying that if they eat enough fat they won't lose weight.
:::::::::
::::::::: The fact that they succeeded in losing weight by eating a very
::::::::: high fat diet for a period of time cannot be negated simply
::::::::: because you will it so or because of your opinionated "logic".
:::::::::
::::::::: You cannot negate a fact just because you think it ought to
::::::::: be.
:::::::::
::::::::: The very fact that they lost weight on a very high fat diet
::::::::: should make it clear to you that dietary fat does NOT EQUATE
::::::::: to fat gain simply because you think it ought to.
:::::::::
::::::::: Time to rethink your beliefs. Fat does not make fat. Carbs do.
:::::::::
::::::::: TC
:::::::::
::::::::::
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: In six weeks:
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Weight: 172 lbs to 153 lbs
:::::::::::: Waist: 37.5" to just under 35"
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: I'm going to get off the fat-fast on Monday because I
:::::::::::: really want to continue my weight-training.

I see you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim so you resort to
insults... typical brainless person...

A 1,000-1,200 calorie, carbohydrate filled diet won't do a thing for most
people. Eat some baked potatoes and white bread sandwiches and see if you
lose weight. Guaranteed that anyone restricting their carbs will lose more
fat.

Learn to read and research. You just look like a fool.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: "If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
:: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
:: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some small %
:: of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works."
::
:: I disagree completely. Please show some research or a back-up for
:: this. I'd dying to hear this...

Dying to hear what? You don't believe that lots of folks can lose weight
just by eating only 1000 kcals per day? You claimed you couldn't lose on
a low calorie low fat diet, but you can on a high fat low calorie diet.
You are the classic insulin resistant, metabolically screwed person, for
whom a fat fast is about the only thing that works.

::
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: According to my fitday records, the lowest I ate per day was 900
::::: calories and the highest was 1500 calories. Most days I barely ate
::::: 1100 calories on induction foods.
:::::
::::: True, in the fat fast I'm eating 1000-1050 calories a day, but
::::: that's what, 50-100 calories less than I was eating? Obviously the
::::: calories are not the trigger, but the fat.
:::
::: If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
::: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
::: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some small %
::: of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works.
:::
:::::
::::: If you eat 90% fat, your body is forced to burn the fat on your
::::: body. You can read this in Dr. Atkins book. The fat fast is not
::::: even Dr. Atkins work, but someone elses. Your body is forced into
::::: Lipolysis and Ketosis. Your body burns 1) carbs 2) protein 3) fat.
::::: Atkins works by restricting #1. The fat-fast works by restricting
::::: #1 and #2, leaving your body to HAVE TO burn the fat. I've just
::::: proved it in 4 days where I lost 5 lbs, whereas on induction
::::: levels I lost 2 lbs per week for the past 2 weeks. You still
::::: doubt it?
:::
::: Doubt what? Most folks who are prediabetic lose great on
::: Atkins...those who are highly insulin resistant lose great too. So
::: nothing in surprising. However, I don't believe you lost 5 lbs of
::: real fat in 4 days not after being on induction first...I think you
::: probably lost some of that weight before while you were on
::: induction...it's just now showing up on the scales. Also, you're
::: probably losing some muscle as well as fat.
:::
:::::
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::: Exactly. Buying the Atkins book has helped me tremendously.
:::::::: Well, actually, reading it has. Once you understand that your
:::::::: body burns carbs before fat, you're 90% there. There's a
:::::::: section in the book for people having a hard time losing
:::::::: weight even on the suggested Atkins diet/people on a plateau.
:::::::: I read it, and it made sense. If I'm restricting my carb
:::::::: intake and also lower my protein by eating 75-90% carbs, the
:::::::: body has no choice but to burn the fat.
::::::
:::::: What?
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: So, the mad scientist that I am, I decided to try the fat-fast
:::::::: for the recommended 5 days before going back to induction level
:::::::: carbs. I had solid weight loss on induction, around 2 lbs a
:::::::: week after 3 weeks of hovering around 162, but I wanted to try
:::::::: it anyway.
::::::::
:::::::: And what can I say, i'm amazed. 1,000 calories a day, 75% to
:::::::: 90% of which is fat. In two days I went from 158 to 155. 2
:::::::: days later I'm at 153. My waist is down nearly an inch. For
:::::::: some reason I'm not very hungry at all. Even on my Atkins
:::::::: induction diet, I was only eating 1200-1500 calories a day.
::::::
:::::: ???
::::::
:::::: so, you switched to 1000 kcals/ day of almost all fat...and you
:::::: lost weight. But prior you were eating more kcals.
::::::
:::::: For all you know, you had lost some of that weight prior to
:::::: starting the fat fast....sometimes weight loss happens after you
:::::: would have expected it. This proves nothing.
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: Simply put, the fat-fast works and it's true that while eating
:::::::: more substantially more fat, you will lose weight, primarily
:::::::: fat.
::::::
:::::: Geuses, you're so unthinking it's funny. You only ate 1000 kcal
:::::: / day for 5 days. There's no magic there. You simply eat a
:::::: greater precentage of fat than anything else. But if you really
:::::: believe that you can eat unlimited amounts of fat and lose
:::::: weight, when don't you just up your calories to about 4000 /
:::::: day and see what happens. If you do that, since you're eating
:::::: more fat, you should lose more weight, right?
::::::
:::::: I'm not
:::::::: going to stay on it after today, because 5 days is enough, I'm
:::::::: happy with my regular weight loss on induction, and I want to
:::::::: resume weight-training. The diet is not that enjoyable either,
:::::::: but then again Atkins advises to only do the fat-fast for 4-5
:::::::: days tops.
::::::::
:::::::: FYI, I was on a 1200 calorie diet before I tried Atkins again.
:::::::: I ate 1 or 2 baked potatoes a day as well as other foods but
:::::::: kept my calories down to 1200. In two weeks I went from 172 to
:::::::: 172. :-) <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::::::
::::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::::::: After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone from
:::::::::::: 172 to 153 lbs.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Since Thursday I've been doing the fat-fast as well as
:::::::::::: walking 3 miles a day. Basically I have 2 oz of cream
:::::::::::: cheese, salad, macademia nuts, and egg yolks. Since
:::::::::::: Thursday I've gone from 158 to 153. Not the most fun
:::::::::::: "diet" but it helped me break my plateau (I was hanging
:::::::::::: around 160 for several weeks). Isn't it amazing, that the
:::::::::::: more fat you eat compared to carbs, the MORE fat you lose?
::::::::::
:::::::::: If you eat enough fat, you won't lose weight.
:::::::::
::::::::: Do you understand what you just did?
:::::::::
::::::::: You've just been told that this person ate a very high fat
::::::::: diet for a period of time and lost weight. You respond by
::::::::: saying that if they eat enough fat they won't lose weight.
:::::::::
::::::::: The fact that they succeeded in losing weight by eating a very
::::::::: high fat diet for a period of time cannot be negated simply
::::::::: because you will it so or because of your opinionated "logic".
:::::::::
::::::::: You cannot negate a fact just because you think it ought to
::::::::: be.
:::::::::
::::::::: The very fact that they lost weight on a very high fat diet
::::::::: should make it clear to you that dietary fat does NOT EQUATE
::::::::: to fat gain simply because you think it ought to.
:::::::::
::::::::: Time to rethink your beliefs. Fat does not make fat. Carbs do.
:::::::::
::::::::: TC
:::::::::
::::::::::
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: In six weeks:
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Weight: 172 lbs to 153 lbs
:::::::::::: Waist: 37.5" to just under 35"
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: I'm going to get off the fat-fast on Monday because I
:::::::::::: really want to continue my weight-training.

You two guys are morons with nothing to back up your claims.

From the Atkins book...

"Kekwick and Pawan were struck by many studies that suggested diets of
different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrate provided differing
rates of weight loss... A diet of 1,000 calories worked well as long as the
level of carbohydrate intake was low, while a high carbohydrate diet of
1,000 calories took off very little weight... But when their diet contained
primarily fat and very little carbohydrate, the same obese subjects could
lose, even when they ate as many as 2,600 calories a day... Despite the
doctors impeccable reputations, the majority of their collegues remained
skeptical, given their "calorie is a calorie" mindset."

Later on...

"By eating foods low in carbohydrate and high in dietary fat, subjects
burned their FAT STORES at almost twice as fast as when they ate nothing at
all."

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

Quoted message said:

Heh Roger, Don't you just love the experts like Yes that have been on
Atkins for 6 weeks, are still fat, but now know how it all works? I've
been away a few days, so I didn't see this thread till now, but the
whole thing is absurd from the start:

"After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone from 172 to 153
lbs. Since Thursday I've been doing the fat-fast as well as walking 3
miles a
day. Since Thursday I've gone from 158 to 153. Not the most fun "diet"
but
it helped me break my plateau (I was hanging around 160 for several
weeks).
Isn't it amazing, that the more fat you eat compared to carbs, the MORE
fat
you lose? "

Let's start with the fact that Yes wasn't even having a problem losing
weight or in a stall. Going from 172 to 158 in around 5 to 6 weeks is
excellent for simply following the normal Atkins diet. Temporary
pauses in weight loss for a couple weeks are normal. So, why the need
for a fat fast? Clearly Yes did not come even close to meeting the
guidelines Dr. Atkins had for who should use it and when it is
appropriate.

As for running around proclaiming the wonders of a fat fast to speed
weight loss, here's what Dr. Atkins had to say:

"Let me make it clear that the Fat Fast is actually dangerous for
anyone who is not metabolically resistant."

And Yes completely ignored a key requirement of the fat fast, which is
to restrict calories to 1000 per day. So, apparently Dr. Atkins didn't
think it was appropriate to eat an unlimited amount of an essentially
pure fat diet to lose weight.

My main take on this is that some people have very unreasonable
expectations. IMO, if you're not satisfied dropping 14 lbs in 5 to 6
weeks, then it's likely because you view LC as a quick fix to be gotten
over with as quickly as possible so you can go back to your old ways.
People who succeed at LC learn to enjoy eating LC foods like meat,
fish, many vegetables, and some fruits, and using them in creative and
appetizing ways. They don't go around doing needless fat fasts, with
restrictive menus that would make most people puke.

Roger is still obese.

That should tell you something.

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

Quoted message said:

I see you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim so you resort to
insults... typical brainless person...

A 1,000-1,200 calorie, carbohydrate filled diet won't do a thing for most
people. Eat some baked potatoes and white bread sandwiches and see if you
lose weight. Guaranteed that anyone restricting their carbs will lose more
fat.

Learn to read and research. You just look like a fool.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: "If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
:: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
:: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some small %
:: of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works."
::
:: I disagree completely. Please show some research or a back-up for
:: this. I'd dying to hear this...

Dying to hear what? You don't believe that lots of folks can lose weight
just by eating only 1000 kcals per day? You claimed you couldn't lose on
a low calorie low fat diet, but you can on a high fat low calorie diet.
You are the classic insulin resistant, metabolically screwed person, for
whom a fat fast is about the only thing that works.

::
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: According to my fitday records, the lowest I ate per day was 900
::::: calories and the highest was 1500 calories. Most days I barely ate
::::: 1100 calories on induction foods.
:::::
::::: True, in the fat fast I'm eating 1000-1050 calories a day, but
::::: that's what, 50-100 calories less than I was eating? Obviously the
::::: calories are not the trigger, but the fat.
:::
::: If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
::: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
::: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some small %
::: of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works.
:::
:::::
::::: If you eat 90% fat, your body is forced to burn the fat on your
::::: body. You can read this in Dr. Atkins book. The fat fast is not
::::: even Dr. Atkins work, but someone elses. Your body is forced into
::::: Lipolysis and Ketosis. Your body burns 1) carbs 2) protein 3) fat.
::::: Atkins works by restricting #1. The fat-fast works by restricting
::::: #1 and #2, leaving your body to HAVE TO burn the fat. I've just
::::: proved it in 4 days where I lost 5 lbs, whereas on induction
::::: levels I lost 2 lbs per week for the past 2 weeks. You still
::::: doubt it?
:::
::: Doubt what? Most folks who are prediabetic lose great on
::: Atkins...those who are highly insulin resistant lose great too. So
::: nothing in surprising. However, I don't believe you lost 5 lbs of
::: real fat in 4 days not after being on induction first...I think you
::: probably lost some of that weight before while you were on
::: induction...it's just now showing up on the scales. Also, you're
::: probably losing some muscle as well as fat.
:::
:::::
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::: Exactly. Buying the Atkins book has helped me tremendously.
:::::::: Well, actually, reading it has. Once you understand that your
:::::::: body burns carbs before fat, you're 90% there. There's a
:::::::: section in the book for people having a hard time losing
:::::::: weight even on the suggested Atkins diet/people on a plateau.
:::::::: I read it, and it made sense. If I'm restricting my carb
:::::::: intake and also lower my protein by eating 75-90% carbs, the
:::::::: body has no choice but to burn the fat.
::::::
:::::: What?
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: So, the mad scientist that I am, I decided to try the fat-fast
:::::::: for the recommended 5 days before going back to induction level
:::::::: carbs. I had solid weight loss on induction, around 2 lbs a
:::::::: week after 3 weeks of hovering around 162, but I wanted to try
:::::::: it anyway.
::::::::
:::::::: And what can I say, i'm amazed. 1,000 calories a day, 75% to
:::::::: 90% of which is fat. In two days I went from 158 to 155. 2
:::::::: days later I'm at 153. My waist is down nearly an inch. For
:::::::: some reason I'm not very hungry at all. Even on my Atkins
:::::::: induction diet, I was only eating 1200-1500 calories a day.
::::::
:::::: ???
::::::
:::::: so, you switched to 1000 kcals/ day of almost all fat...and you
:::::: lost weight. But prior you were eating more kcals.
::::::
:::::: For all you know, you had lost some of that weight prior to
:::::: starting the fat fast....sometimes weight loss happens after you
:::::: would have expected it. This proves nothing.
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: Simply put, the fat-fast works and it's true that while eating
:::::::: more substantially more fat, you will lose weight, primarily
:::::::: fat.
::::::
:::::: Geuses, you're so unthinking it's funny. You only ate 1000 kcal
:::::: / day for 5 days. There's no magic there. You simply eat a
:::::: greater precentage of fat than anything else. But if you really
:::::: believe that you can eat unlimited amounts of fat and lose
:::::: weight, when don't you just up your calories to about 4000 /
:::::: day and see what happens. If you do that, since you're eating
:::::: more fat, you should lose more weight, right?
::::::
:::::: I'm not
:::::::: going to stay on it after today, because 5 days is enough, I'm
:::::::: happy with my regular weight loss on induction, and I want to
:::::::: resume weight-training. The diet is not that enjoyable either,
:::::::: but then again Atkins advises to only do the fat-fast for 4-5
:::::::: days tops.
::::::::
:::::::: FYI, I was on a 1200 calorie diet before I tried Atkins again.
:::::::: I ate 1 or 2 baked potatoes a day as well as other foods but
:::::::: kept my calories down to 1200. In two weeks I went from 172 to
:::::::: 172. :-) <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::::::
::::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::::::: After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone from
:::::::::::: 172 to 153 lbs.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Since Thursday I've been doing the fat-fast as well as
:::::::::::: walking 3 miles a day. Basically I have 2 oz of cream
:::::::::::: cheese, salad, macademia nuts, and egg yolks. Since
:::::::::::: Thursday I've gone from 158 to 153. Not the most fun
:::::::::::: "diet" but it helped me break my plateau (I was hanging
:::::::::::: around 160 for several weeks). Isn't it amazing, that the
:::::::::::: more fat you eat compared to carbs, the MORE fat you lose?
::::::::::
:::::::::: If you eat enough fat, you won't lose weight.
:::::::::
::::::::: Do you understand what you just did?
:::::::::
::::::::: You've just been told that this person ate a very high fat
::::::::: diet for a period of time and lost weight. You respond by
::::::::: saying that if they eat enough fat they won't lose weight.
:::::::::
::::::::: The fact that they succeeded in losing weight by eating a very
::::::::: high fat diet for a period of time cannot be negated simply
::::::::: because you will it so or because of your opinionated "logic".
:::::::::
::::::::: You cannot negate a fact just because you think it ought to
::::::::: be.
:::::::::
::::::::: The very fact that they lost weight on a very high fat diet
::::::::: should make it clear to you that dietary fat does NOT EQUATE
::::::::: to fat gain simply because you think it ought to.
:::::::::
::::::::: Time to rethink your beliefs. Fat does not make fat. Carbs do.
:::::::::
::::::::: TC
:::::::::
::::::::::
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: In six weeks:
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Weight: 172 lbs to 153 lbs
:::::::::::: Waist: 37.5" to just under 35"
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: I'm going to get off the fat-fast on Monday because I
:::::::::::: really want to continue my weight-training.

Quoted message said:

Heh Roger, Don't you just love the experts like Yes that have been on
Atkins for 6 weeks, are still fat, but now know how it all works?

Chuckle. Absolutely. Especially when even folks on Atkins
for over 5 years can't agree on most topics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone from 172 to 153

Let's start with the fact that Yes wasn't even having a problem losing
weight or in a stall. Going from 172 to 158 in around 5 to 6 weeks is
excellent for simply following the normal Atkins diet. Temporary
pauses in weight loss for a couple weeks are normal.

Right. Yes claims to have read the book, but there seems to be
an issue with what the word read means:

1) Page through the book looking for sentences that justifiy
what you want to do then do that and claim you read the book
and are following the directions.

2) Read the book from front cover to start of recipes like it
is a college textbook. Use the table of contents to set what
is more or less important in single sentenes. Follow what
the directions actually say no matter that you don't think
they are obvious.

Quoted message said:

So, why the need for a fat fast?

Because number one above is emoptionally satisfying is
my guess.

Quoted message said:

Clearly Yes did not come even close to meeting the
guidelines Dr. Atkins had for who should use it and when it is
appropriate.

Quoted message said:

As for running around proclaiming the wonders of a fat fast to speed
weight loss, here's what Dr. Atkins had to say:

"Let me make it clear that the Fat Fast is actually dangerous for
anyone who is not metabolically resistant."

And that a stall is 4+ weeks, and that there's a table that tells
what metabolically resistant means and Yes's results puts
him far into the metabolically suseptible range.

Quoted message said:

And Yes completely ignored a key requirement of the fat fast, which is
to restrict calories to 1000 per day. So, apparently Dr. Atkins didn't
think it was appropriate to eat an unlimited amount of an essentially
pure fat diet to lose weight.

Also the thing about 75 to 90% of calories from fat where
the fat fast is 90% from fat.

Quoted message said:

My main take on this is that some people have very unreasonable
expectations.

And Yes is basically a comical lampoon of them in his
level of irrational extremity.

Quoted message said:

IMO, if you're not satisfied dropping 14 lbs in 5 to 6
weeks, then it's likely because you view LC as a quick fix to be gotten
over with as quickly as possible so you can go back to your old ways.

And that path guarantees regain. Regain it all and the loss
may as well have never happened.

Quoted message said:

People who succeed at LC learn to enjoy eating LC foods like meat,
fish, many vegetables, and some fruits, and using them in creative and
appetizing ways. They don't go around doing needless fat fasts, with
restrictive menus that would make most people puke.

Chuckle.

Yes isn't completely without points from the book. That happens
when you randomly fish for sentences justifying what you want
to do. For example his comment on fat-to-protein ratio effecting
loss in the short term is correct. But notice how it doesn't evn
mention carb count?

There is a way to apply this principle in a way that doesn't
violate any Atkins principle at all, though it isn't mentioned in
the book and it uses input from another book so it exceeds
what's actually in the book:

Follow the DANDR directions to find your CCLL. Less isn't
more - Atkins is about right-sizing carb intake not blindly
reducing it. Anyone who imagines that Atkins includes
reducing veggie intake hasn't paid the slightest attention.

Read Protein Power by Drs Eades and figure out your minimum
protein grams per day. Dr Atkins appears to have figured folks
already eat plenty so he didn't discuss protein much. Use that
minimum as your target protein grams.

Find some reasonable calorie guideline and use that as your
target calories.

Do the math and fill the rest of your calories with fat.

All within the principles, all safe, all allowed. Yet it does
use the fat-to-protein ratio effect (BTW the hormone to
research for how this works is glucagon) mentioned in the
book and it does use the idea of CCLL as the best carb
level that's in the book (BTW the hormone to research for
why it ends up a low number is insulin, the hormones to
research for why lower isn't better in the long term are T3
thyroid and leptin).

Over the years some folks have tried this (it's plenty of work
to figure out your customized numbers) and reported good
results. It's a way to get most of the benefits of the fat fast
without the any of the dangers.

Using my numbers: CCL=50 (I fall out of ketosis at 55-60),
Protein=77 (chapter in PP), calories=1800 (my ideal weight
is 175-180 per chapter in PP). 1800-(50*4)=1600.
1600-(77*4)=1292. 1292/9=144. So to do this my target
grams are 144 fat, 77 protein, 50 carbs. Not nearly the
extreme of the fat fast but it pushes all the hormones in
the right direction and works great.

Luna wrote:
:: In article <[email hidden]>,
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: Luna wrote:
::::: In article <[email hidden]>, <[email hidden]>
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: Eat this for five straight days
::::::
:::::: Breakfast:
::::::
:::::: 4 egg yolks (hard-boiled) with 2 tablespoons of mayo
:::::: 2 oz cream cheese
:::::: (600 calories)
:::::
::::: Hah, ok I'm stopping right there, I know I couldn't do this. I
::::: feel a bit ill just thinking of eating that much at one sitting.
:::
::: Split it up into 3 parts and stand between eating each.
::
:: Not gonna happen. Low-carb has, apparently, permanently wounded my
:: once voracious appetite.
::
:: As a child, before I was even fat, I once ate a whole package of Fig
:: Newtons. My record for pizza (don't clearly remember the toppings,
:: but I know for sure there was sausage and mushrooms, probably more
:: knowing my dad) was seven slices, and my record for fried chicken
:: was eight pieces (thighs, legs, and at least 2 breasts)
::
:: Way before I started low-carb, about 4 years and 50 pounds ago, I
:: was in a new relationship with a guy who liked to eat as much as I
:: did. About a month into our relationship he took me out for
:: breakfast at a little mom and pop restaurant known for huge portions
:: at a small price. The bet was that if I could eat a stack of
:: pancakes within an hour, then breakfast was on him, and if I
:: couldn't, then I was buying.
::
:: This stack "only" had three pancakes, but they were so big they were
:: hanging off the edge of the large plate, and they were so thick and
:: heavy I couldn't lift the plate with one hand, and it was a struggle
:: with two. No wimpy crepes, these. Big enough to make two meals for
:: a trucker, I kid you not. But I was undaunted, up for the
:: challenge, even pretending a confident swagger while inside I was
:: all " . . . urk. help!"
::
:: I made it through the stack with just 2 minutes to spare. Towards
:: about the middle it got to be a real struggle, and the last few
:: bites were almost torturous. I think at the end I actually had my
:: head down on the table, too tired from swallowing and digesting to
:: hold it up any more. But ultimately, I triumphed.
::
:: The look on his face when I finished was worth the two-day-long
:: painful constipation. Now, some guys might be a bit disgusted with
:: a woman who can pack it away like that, but he had nothing but pride
:: and admiration for me and my accomplishment.
::
:: Now, sadly, a task like that is way beyond my abilities. I can't
:: even imagine eating one pancake, let alone three. But it's not just
:: that I can no longer pig out on carby foods, even regular food
:: (weird, I now think of low-carb food as "regular food" cool) has me
:: beaten now. I keep having to put half my steak in the fridge for
:: the next day! I can only eat 2 eggs for breakfast, when I used to
:: eat a 3-egg scramble with cheese, AND bacon, AND toast!
::
:: Damn you, low-carb! Never again will I be able to win an "I bet you
:: can't eat the whole thing" wager. My dreams of being a competitive
:: eater are over. I coulda been a contender!!

That's funny....I tell ya, though, I'd like to have a shot at those
pancakes --- after a 100-mile bike ride, that is.....

[email hidden] wrote:
:: I see you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim so you
:: resort to insults... typical brainless person...

What insults?

::
:: A 1,000-1,200 calorie, carbohydrate filled diet won't do a thing for
:: most people. Eat some baked potatoes and white bread sandwiches and
:: see if you lose weight. Guaranteed that anyone restricting their
:: carbs will lose more fat.

Are you kidding? There are plenty of people who can lose weight that
way...surely you don't think LC is the only way to lose weight, do you? I
happen to think it's the best way, but it is not the only way.

::
:: Learn to read and research. You just look like a fool.
::

You really do need to get out more....

:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: "If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
::::: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
::::: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some small
::::: % of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works."
:::::
::::: I disagree completely. Please show some research or a back-up for
::::: this. I'd dying to hear this...
:::
::: Dying to hear what? You don't believe that lots of folks can lose
::: weight just by eating only 1000 kcals per day? You claimed you
::: couldn't lose on a low calorie low fat diet, but you can on a high
::: fat low calorie diet. You are the classic insulin resistant,
::: metabolically screwed person, for whom a fat fast is about the only
::: thing that works.
:::
:::::
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::: According to my fitday records, the lowest I ate per day was
:::::::: 900 calories and the highest was 1500 calories. Most days I
:::::::: barely ate 1100 calories on induction foods.
::::::::
:::::::: True, in the fat fast I'm eating 1000-1050 calories a day, but
:::::::: that's what, 50-100 calories less than I was eating? Obviously
:::::::: the calories are not the trigger, but the fat.
::::::
:::::: If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
:::::: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
:::::: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some
:::::: small % of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works.
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: If you eat 90% fat, your body is forced to burn the fat on your
:::::::: body. You can read this in Dr. Atkins book. The fat fast is not
:::::::: even Dr. Atkins work, but someone elses. Your body is forced
:::::::: into Lipolysis and Ketosis. Your body burns 1) carbs 2)
:::::::: protein 3) fat. Atkins works by restricting #1. The fat-fast
:::::::: works by restricting #1 and #2, leaving your body to HAVE TO
:::::::: burn the fat. I've just proved it in 4 days where I lost 5
:::::::: lbs, whereas on induction levels I lost 2 lbs per week for the
:::::::: past 2 weeks. You still doubt it?
::::::
:::::: Doubt what? Most folks who are prediabetic lose great on
:::::: Atkins...those who are highly insulin resistant lose great too.
:::::: So nothing in surprising. However, I don't believe you lost 5
:::::: lbs of real fat in 4 days not after being on induction first...I
:::::: think you probably lost some of that weight before while you
:::::: were on induction...it's just now showing up on the scales.
:::::: Also, you're probably losing some muscle as well as fat.
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::::::: news:[email hidden]...
::::::::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::::::::: Exactly. Buying the Atkins book has helped me tremendously.
::::::::::: Well, actually, reading it has. Once you understand that
::::::::::: your body burns carbs before fat, you're 90% there. There's
::::::::::: a section in the book for people having a hard time losing
::::::::::: weight even on the suggested Atkins diet/people on a
::::::::::: plateau. I read it, and it made sense. If I'm restricting
::::::::::: my carb intake and also lower my protein by eating 75-90%
::::::::::: carbs, the body has no choice but to burn the fat.
:::::::::
::::::::: What?
:::::::::
:::::::::::
::::::::::: So, the mad scientist that I am, I decided to try the
::::::::::: fat-fast for the recommended 5 days before going back to
::::::::::: induction level carbs. I had solid weight loss on
::::::::::: induction, around 2 lbs a week after 3 weeks of hovering
::::::::::: around 162, but I wanted to try it anyway.
:::::::::::
::::::::::: And what can I say, i'm amazed. 1,000 calories a day, 75% to
::::::::::: 90% of which is fat. In two days I went from 158 to 155. 2
::::::::::: days later I'm at 153. My waist is down nearly an inch. For
::::::::::: some reason I'm not very hungry at all. Even on my Atkins
::::::::::: induction diet, I was only eating 1200-1500 calories a day.
:::::::::
::::::::: ???
:::::::::
::::::::: so, you switched to 1000 kcals/ day of almost all fat...and
::::::::: you lost weight. But prior you were eating more kcals.
:::::::::
::::::::: For all you know, you had lost some of that weight prior to
::::::::: starting the fat fast....sometimes weight loss happens after
::::::::: you would have expected it. This proves nothing.
:::::::::
:::::::::::
::::::::::: Simply put, the fat-fast works and it's true that while
::::::::::: eating more substantially more fat, you will lose weight,
::::::::::: primarily fat.
:::::::::
::::::::: Geuses, you're so unthinking it's funny. You only ate 1000
::::::::: kcal / day for 5 days. There's no magic there. You simply
::::::::: eat a greater precentage of fat than anything else. But if
::::::::: you really believe that you can eat unlimited amounts of fat
::::::::: and lose weight, when don't you just up your calories to
::::::::: about 4000 / day and see what happens. If you do that, since
::::::::: you're eating more fat, you should lose more weight, right?
:::::::::
::::::::: I'm not
::::::::::: going to stay on it after today, because 5 days is enough,
::::::::::: I'm happy with my regular weight loss on induction, and I
::::::::::: want to resume weight-training. The diet is not that
::::::::::: enjoyable either, but then again Atkins advises to only do
::::::::::: the fat-fast for 4-5 days tops.
:::::::::::
::::::::::: FYI, I was on a 1200 calorie diet before I tried Atkins
::::::::::: again. I ate 1 or 2 baked potatoes a day as well as other
::::::::::: foods but kept my calories down to 1200. In two weeks I
::::::::::: went from 172 to 172. :-) <[email hidden]> wrote in
::::::::::: message
::::::::::: news:[email hidden]...
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::::::::::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::::::::::::: After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone
::::::::::::::: from 172 to 153 lbs.
:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: Since Thursday I've been doing the fat-fast as well as
::::::::::::::: walking 3 miles a day. Basically I have 2 oz of cream
::::::::::::::: cheese, salad, macademia nuts, and egg yolks. Since
::::::::::::::: Thursday I've gone from 158 to 153. Not the most fun
::::::::::::::: "diet" but it helped me break my plateau (I was hanging
::::::::::::::: around 160 for several weeks). Isn't it amazing, that
::::::::::::::: the more fat you eat compared to carbs, the MORE fat
::::::::::::::: you lose?
:::::::::::::
::::::::::::: If you eat enough fat, you won't lose weight.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Do you understand what you just did?
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: You've just been told that this person ate a very high fat
:::::::::::: diet for a period of time and lost weight. You respond by
:::::::::::: saying that if they eat enough fat they won't lose weight.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: The fact that they succeeded in losing weight by eating a
:::::::::::: very high fat diet for a period of time cannot be negated
:::::::::::: simply because you will it so or because of your
:::::::::::: opinionated "logic".
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: You cannot negate a fact just because you think it ought to
:::::::::::: be.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: The very fact that they lost weight on a very high fat diet
:::::::::::: should make it clear to you that dietary fat does NOT
:::::::::::: EQUATE to fat gain simply because you think it ought to.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Time to rethink your beliefs. Fat does not make fat. Carbs
:::::::::::: do.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: TC
::::::::::::
:::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: In six weeks:
:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: Weight: 172 lbs to 153 lbs
::::::::::::::: Waist: 37.5" to just under 35"
:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: I'm going to get off the fat-fast on Monday because I
::::::::::::::: really want to continue my weight-training.

You're an idiot. I read the entire book cover to cover.

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Heh Roger, Don't you just love the experts like Yes that have been on
Atkins for 6 weeks, are still fat, but now know how it all works?

Chuckle. Absolutely. Especially when even folks on Atkins
for over 5 years can't agree on most topics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone from 172 to 153

Let's start with the fact that Yes wasn't even having a problem losing
weight or in a stall. Going from 172 to 158 in around 5 to 6 weeks is
excellent for simply following the normal Atkins diet. Temporary
pauses in weight loss for a couple weeks are normal.

Right. Yes claims to have read the book, but there seems to be
an issue with what the word read means:

1) Page through the book looking for sentences that justifiy
what you want to do then do that and claim you read the book
and are following the directions.

2) Read the book from front cover to start of recipes like it
is a college textbook. Use the table of contents to set what
is more or less important in single sentenes. Follow what
the directions actually say no matter that you don't think
they are obvious.

Quoted message said:

So, why the need for a fat fast?

Because number one above is emoptionally satisfying is
my guess.

Quoted message said:

Clearly Yes did not come even close to meeting the
guidelines Dr. Atkins had for who should use it and when it is
appropriate.

Quoted message said:

As for running around proclaiming the wonders of a fat fast to speed
weight loss, here's what Dr. Atkins had to say:

"Let me make it clear that the Fat Fast is actually dangerous for
anyone who is not metabolically resistant."

And that a stall is 4+ weeks, and that there's a table that tells
what metabolically resistant means and Yes's results puts
him far into the metabolically suseptible range.

Quoted message said:

And Yes completely ignored a key requirement of the fat fast, which is
to restrict calories to 1000 per day. So, apparently Dr. Atkins didn't
think it was appropriate to eat an unlimited amount of an essentially
pure fat diet to lose weight.

Also the thing about 75 to 90% of calories from fat where
the fat fast is 90% from fat.

Quoted message said:

My main take on this is that some people have very unreasonable
expectations.

And Yes is basically a comical lampoon of them in his
level of irrational extremity.

Quoted message said:

IMO, if you're not satisfied dropping 14 lbs in 5 to 6
weeks, then it's likely because you view LC as a quick fix to be gotten
over with as quickly as possible so you can go back to your old ways.

And that path guarantees regain. Regain it all and the loss
may as well have never happened.

Quoted message said:

People who succeed at LC learn to enjoy eating LC foods like meat,
fish, many vegetables, and some fruits, and using them in creative and
appetizing ways. They don't go around doing needless fat fasts, with
restrictive menus that would make most people puke.

Chuckle.

Yes isn't completely without points from the book. That happens
when you randomly fish for sentences justifying what you want
to do. For example his comment on fat-to-protein ratio effecting
loss in the short term is correct. But notice how it doesn't evn
mention carb count?

There is a way to apply this principle in a way that doesn't
violate any Atkins principle at all, though it isn't mentioned in
the book and it uses input from another book so it exceeds
what's actually in the book:

Follow the DANDR directions to find your CCLL. Less isn't
more - Atkins is about right-sizing carb intake not blindly
reducing it. Anyone who imagines that Atkins includes
reducing veggie intake hasn't paid the slightest attention.

Read Protein Power by Drs Eades and figure out your minimum
protein grams per day. Dr Atkins appears to have figured folks
already eat plenty so he didn't discuss protein much. Use that
minimum as your target protein grams.

Find some reasonable calorie guideline and use that as your
target calories.

Do the math and fill the rest of your calories with fat.

All within the principles, all safe, all allowed. Yet it does
use the fat-to-protein ratio effect (BTW the hormone to
research for how this works is glucagon) mentioned in the
book and it does use the idea of CCLL as the best carb
level that's in the book (BTW the hormone to research for
why it ends up a low number is insulin, the hormones to
research for why lower isn't better in the long term are T3
thyroid and leptin).

Over the years some folks have tried this (it's plenty of work
to figure out your customized numbers) and reported good
results. It's a way to get most of the benefits of the fat fast
without the any of the dangers.

Using my numbers: CCL=50 (I fall out of ketosis at 55-60),
Protein=77 (chapter in PP), calories=1800 (my ideal weight
is 175-180 per chapter in PP). 1800-(50*4)=1600.
1600-(77*4)=1292. 1292/9=144. So to do this my target
grams are 144 fat, 77 protein, 50 carbs. Not nearly the
extreme of the fat fast but it pushes all the hormones in
the right direction and works great.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: wrong wrong wrong wrong
::
:: I already told you my scale was stuck on 158 for 2.5 weeks.
::

There are things that can mask weight loss....it happens all the
time...people in here report not losing anything for days and weeks, then
eating a few extra carbs, and whoosh - a pounds of weight loss overnight.
So, did they lose those lbs of fat overnight? Yes, the scale weight changed
overnight.

:: Immediately upon trying to fat fast I lost 5 lbs in 4 days and 1 lb
:: off of my waist. You can "disbelieve" all you want. It makes you
:: look silly.
::

So you saw a change in scale weight....perhaps you were holding water
weight...if you're metabolically screwed up, it can happen even if you're
doing Atkins.

:: And to the previous poster that said I was fat. I'm 5'6" and 153,
:: I'm hardly fat. You're disrespecting people that are actually badly
:: overweight and doing atkins.

Where is the disrespect?

::
:: I just love how people "need" to be right that they ignore facts and
:: downplay someone elses success.
::

Who's downplaying anyones successes? No one ever said the fat fast doesn't
work. What I said is you can eat too much fat and prevent weight loss. For
some reason, you disagree with that. The fat fast forces you to not eat too
much fat by limiting you 1000 kcals / day. If you had simply read what I
was saying, this thread wouldn't have grown as it did.

:: Btw. I said it's not 100% fat.

That's not what you said hte first time....

:: Nothing is absolute. But the proof is
:: there.

Well, the experiences of one person is hardly proof. But I don't have any
reason to believe that your scale weight didn't change as you said it did.

:: When you don't eat carbs or protein, and eat fat, your body
:: has no choice but to go into a deep ketosis and therefore.... burn
:: fat. Your brilliance astonishes me.

Yeah, and force your body to burn muscle, too. Why don't you use the plan I
gave you below?

:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: You can not believe all you want. I lost 1" off of my waist and 5
::::: lbs in 4 days. Of course it's not 100% fat, but the proof is
::::: there. If you don't eat carbs, and limit your protein, your body
::::: has no choice but to burn fat. You obviously haven't read the
::::: book or looked at any research.
:::
::: Make up your mind...in other posts you said you lost only fat, now
::: you're saying it's not only fat?
:::
::: Based on your weight and eating of 1000 kcal/day, I don't think you
::: lost 5 lbs in 4 days. No. I can believe that the scale changed by
::: that much, but I don't believe you really lost that weight in 4
::: days. You were probably holding on to water weight for some
::: reason, and the fat fast freed it up.
:::
::: If you really think this works, then why don't you do this: Do a
::: fat fast every other week....one week on and one week off. Just do
::: induction in the week you're off the fat fast so you don't gain any
::: back. You'll be to goal in no time as you'll lose at least 10 lbs
::: a month, maybe more!
:::
:::::
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::::: news:[email hidden]...
:::::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::::::: According to my fitday records, the lowest I ate per day was
:::::::: 900 calories and the highest was 1500 calories. Most days I
:::::::: barely ate 1100 calories on induction foods.
::::::::
:::::::: True, in the fat fast I'm eating 1000-1050 calories a day, but
:::::::: that's what, 50-100 calories less than I was eating? Obviously
:::::::: the calories are not the trigger, but the fat.
::::::
:::::: If you're extremely insulin resistant, then this maybe a key for
:::::: you. But for most folks, just the sheer lack of calories is what
:::::: does the trick, even at higher carb levels. There are some
:::::: small % of folks for whom nothing but cutting carbs works.
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: If you eat 90% fat, your body is forced to burn the fat on your
:::::::: body. You can read this in Dr. Atkins book. The fat fast is not
:::::::: even Dr. Atkins work, but someone elses. Your body is forced
:::::::: into Lipolysis and Ketosis. Your body burns 1) carbs 2)
:::::::: protein 3) fat. Atkins works by restricting #1. The fat-fast
:::::::: works by restricting #1 and #2, leaving your body to HAVE TO
:::::::: burn the fat. I've just proved it in 4 days where I lost 5
:::::::: lbs, whereas on induction levels I lost 2 lbs per week for the
:::::::: past 2 weeks. You still doubt it?
::::::
:::::: Doubt what? Most folks who are prediabetic lose great on
:::::: Atkins...those who are highly insulin resistant lose great too.
:::::: So nothing in surprising. However, I don't believe you lost 5
:::::: lbs of real fat in 4 days not after being on induction first...I
:::::: think you probably lost some of that weight before while you
:::::: were on induction...it's just now showing up on the scales.
:::::: Also, you're probably losing some muscle as well as fat.
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::::::: news:[email hidden]...
::::::::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::::::::: Exactly. Buying the Atkins book has helped me tremendously.
::::::::::: Well, actually, reading it has. Once you understand that
::::::::::: your body burns carbs before fat, you're 90% there. There's
::::::::::: a section in the book for people having a hard time losing
::::::::::: weight even on the suggested Atkins diet/people on a
::::::::::: plateau. I read it, and it made sense. If I'm restricting
::::::::::: my carb intake and also lower my protein by eating 75-90%
::::::::::: carbs, the body has no choice but to burn the fat.
:::::::::
::::::::: What?
:::::::::
:::::::::::
::::::::::: So, the mad scientist that I am, I decided to try the
::::::::::: fat-fast for the recommended 5 days before going back to
::::::::::: induction level carbs. I had solid weight loss on
::::::::::: induction, around 2 lbs a week after 3 weeks of hovering
::::::::::: around 162, but I wanted to try it anyway.
:::::::::::
::::::::::: And what can I say, i'm amazed. 1,000 calories a day, 75% to
::::::::::: 90% of which is fat. In two days I went from 158 to 155. 2
::::::::::: days later I'm at 153. My waist is down nearly an inch. For
::::::::::: some reason I'm not very hungry at all. Even on my Atkins
::::::::::: induction diet, I was only eating 1200-1500 calories a day.
:::::::::
::::::::: ???
:::::::::
::::::::: so, you switched to 1000 kcals/ day of almost all fat...and
::::::::: you lost weight. But prior you were eating more kcals.
:::::::::
::::::::: For all you know, you had lost some of that weight prior to
::::::::: starting the fat fast....sometimes weight loss happens after
::::::::: you would have expected it. This proves nothing.
:::::::::
:::::::::::
::::::::::: Simply put, the fat-fast works and it's true that while
::::::::::: eating more substantially more fat, you will lose weight,
::::::::::: primarily fat.
:::::::::
::::::::: Geuses, you're so unthinking it's funny. You only ate 1000
::::::::: kcal / day for 5 days. There's no magic there. You simply
::::::::: eat a greater precentage of fat than anything else. But if
::::::::: you really believe that you can eat unlimited amounts of fat
::::::::: and lose weight, when don't you just up your calories to
::::::::: about 4000 / day and see what happens. If you do that, since
::::::::: you're eating more fat, you should lose more weight, right?
:::::::::
::::::::: I'm not
::::::::::: going to stay on it after today, because 5 days is enough,
::::::::::: I'm happy with my regular weight loss on induction, and I
::::::::::: want to resume weight-training. The diet is not that
::::::::::: enjoyable either, but then again Atkins advises to only do
::::::::::: the fat-fast for 4-5 days tops.
:::::::::::
::::::::::: FYI, I was on a 1200 calorie diet before I tried Atkins
::::::::::: again. I ate 1 or 2 baked potatoes a day as well as other
::::::::::: foods but kept my calories down to 1200. In two weeks I
::::::::::: went from 172 to 172. :-) <[email hidden]> wrote in
::::::::::: message
::::::::::: news:[email hidden]...
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::::::::::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::::::::::::: After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone
::::::::::::::: from 172 to 153 lbs.
:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: Since Thursday I've been doing the fat-fast as well as
::::::::::::::: walking 3 miles a day. Basically I have 2 oz of cream
::::::::::::::: cheese, salad, macademia nuts, and egg yolks. Since
::::::::::::::: Thursday I've gone from 158 to 153. Not the most fun
::::::::::::::: "diet" but it helped me break my plateau (I was hanging
::::::::::::::: around 160 for several weeks). Isn't it amazing, that
::::::::::::::: the more fat you eat compared to carbs, the MORE fat
::::::::::::::: you lose?
:::::::::::::
::::::::::::: If you eat enough fat, you won't lose weight.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Do you understand what you just did?
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: You've just been told that this person ate a very high fat
:::::::::::: diet for a period of time and lost weight. You respond by
:::::::::::: saying that if they eat enough fat they won't lose weight.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: The fact that they succeeded in losing weight by eating a
:::::::::::: very high fat diet for a period of time cannot be negated
:::::::::::: simply because you will it so or because of your
:::::::::::: opinionated "logic".
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: You cannot negate a fact just because you think it ought to
:::::::::::: be.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: The very fact that they lost weight on a very high fat diet
:::::::::::: should make it clear to you that dietary fat does NOT
:::::::::::: EQUATE to fat gain simply because you think it ought to.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: Time to rethink your beliefs. Fat does not make fat. Carbs
:::::::::::: do.
::::::::::::
:::::::::::: TC
::::::::::::
:::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: In six weeks:
:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: Weight: 172 lbs to 153 lbs
::::::::::::::: Waist: 37.5" to just under 35"
:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: I'm going to get off the fat-fast on Monday because I
::::::::::::::: really want to continue my weight-training.

Quoted message said:

I read the entire book cover to cover.

Yet six weeks in you're already picking and chosing bits
of the book and pretending expertese. Great. You
didn't pay attention to the book.

While we're on the topic of stalls, do you understand why
a stall is defined as 4+ weeks without a new low and so
on? Of course you don't' It isn't arbitrary you know. It's
to inform newbies what is and isn't realistic in
expectations. Since Induciton includes water loss plus
fat loss it tends to set up unrealistic expectations. The
definition for stall is what it is to overcome those
unrealistic expectations.

If you've read the book and you discard the definition of
stall in favor of your own, and you ignore the table of
what Induction loses imply what metabloci resistances,
who's the idiot again?

Not to worry. You'll crash and burn in a few months and
gain it all back. Then in a couple of years you'll be back
maybe a bit more grown up. The regulars on ASDLC will
still be here.

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I read the entire book cover to cover.

Yet six weeks in you're already picking and chosing bits
of the book and pretending expertese. Great.

And what is your expertise comprised of, Doug?

Dusty said:

I'm Allie by the way. I think my old address was bookally. Hi to anyone who
remembers me. Some of the same people are still here--i remember
Saffire (waves!)

Welcome back, Allie. I do remember the posting name. I don't think I
was reading or posting very much at that time, but that handle is
memorable... smile.

Yes, it's amazing how little you need to get along on lc, isn't it?
The books, and many posters, tend to focus on the metabolic effects of
lc, but just the appetite suppression alone (which is indeed a
metabolic effect) is worth the price of admission.

I've been working with abused women at a non-profit that helps them
obtain court orders protecting them from their abusers. On the day
hearings are held we work from 8 am till we're done, with no breaks
at all. Often we're there until 3 pm or later. Round about 1 or 2
people start complaining about how hungry they are, how much they need
to get something to eat. And lc me is never hungry then at all. I can
easily go from early am to dinner without eating anythingl.

In fact, eating something is more likely to make me more hungry -
probably an indication that my endocrine system isn't totally
normalized... I think I still produce a bit too much insulin in
response to eating. For me, the "eat frequent small meals" advice, a
dieting staple, really isn't good because I spend more post-meal time
being hungry.

HG

I used to eat a low fat, high carb diet of 1000 cals a day, and lost an
average of 5 pounds per week. I couldn't stick with it though, as I was
ravenous ALL the time.

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

Quoted message said:

Calories don't count if you're doing a high carb, low fat diet. I ate only
1200 calories a day in baked potatoes and other "good food" and couldn't
lose a pound in two weeks. Once I cut the carbs, the weight plowed off me.
All calories are not equal.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: After 6 weeks on Atkins (induction levels) I've gone from 172 to
::::: 153 lbs.
:::::
::::: Since Thursday I've been doing the fat-fast as well as walking 3
::::: miles a day. Basically I have 2 oz of cream cheese, salad,
::::: macademia nuts, and egg yolks. Since Thursday I've gone from 158
::::: to 153. Not the most fun "diet" but it helped me break my plateau
::::: (I was hanging around 160 for several weeks). Isn't it amazing,
::::: that the more fat you eat compared to carbs, the MORE fat you
::::: lose?
:::
::: If you eat enough fat, you won't lose weight.
::
:: Do you understand what you just did?
::
:: You've just been told that this person ate a very high fat diet for a
:: period of time and lost weight. You respond by saying that if they
:: eat enough fat they won't lose weight.

Which is true.

::
:: The fact that they succeeded in losing weight by eating a very high
:: fat diet for a period of time cannot be negated simply because you
:: will it so or because of your opinionated "logic".

Eating a very high fat diet is not the same thing as eating so much fat
as
to prevent weight loss. You can eat enough fat to prevent weight loss.
Period. That's all I said. Eating more and more fat will not lead to
more
weight loss.

::
:: You cannot negate a fact just because you think it ought to be.
::

What fact?

:: The very fact that they lost weight on a very high fat diet should
:: make it clear to you that dietary fat does NOT EQUATE to fat gain
:: simply because you think it ought to.

Are you stupid or what? Eating a high-fat diet isn't the same thing as
eating enough fat to prevent weight loss.

::
:: Time to rethink your beliefs. Fat does not make fat. Carbs do.

TC...don't be stupid...if you don't know that I EAT A HIGH-FAT DIET by
now,
you're a complete moron...

What I was attempted to point out is that you can't just eat MORE FAT
and
expect to keep losing weight. i.e, eating more fat doesn't equate to
more
fat loss, though eating a high-fat diet can, under the appropriate
circumstances. Of course, I don't expect you to believe that since you
think thta only carbs make people fat.

More of your "the world according to TC" logic.

No matter WHAT diet plan you are following, calories still count.....

Atkins fat fast is set at 1,000 kc.
--
Peace!
Om

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]"
-- Jack Nicholson

On Mon, 29 May 2006 03:11:12 GMT, Dusty
<[email hidden]> wrote:

|I never realized how low calorie (my) atkins is. I just started using
|Fitday (which I
|had used before but never really paid attention to.) The carbs aren't
|really accurate
|on Fitday because they don't do net carbs (you have to do it yourself
|via the custom
|window); but on Fitday, I did notice that I rarely even have a 1000
|calorie day. In
|fact, yesterday I had had wasa, cream cheese, chicken, suisse mocha (2
|carbs!!!), olives, soy
|milk (soy slender), blue cheese, all bran with fiber--and barely topped
|600 calories. I
|was looking at nutritional needs--and finally broke down and took a vitamin.
|
|Though, to be honest, I'm a female, not quite five feet tall--and I
|really really don't
|eat that much--at least now that I'm watching carbs. Without bread,
|pasta, potatoes,
|flour, sugar and cokes...I find it takes very little food to satisfy
|me. Of course, I did
|have a major trauma get me started back to low carbing. And really, I
|was at the
|fattest of my life, too, when this whole thing started. I am just
|about at the point
|where I was in 2002-3 when I used to come here all of the time.
|
|I'm Allie by the way. I think my old address was bookally. Hi to anyone who
|remembers me. Some of the same people are still here--i remember
|Saffire (waves!)
|
|Allie, aka Dusty

Roger Zoul said:

Not necessarily. There is no calorie limit set on induction.

IME, induction is very *high* calorie. Coming off carbs feels like
withdrawal, you're craving stuff you can't eat constantly, so you eat
tons of what you can. I doubt most folks lose much fat during that two
weeks, it's probably mostly water.

The purpose of induction is not to lose weight, but to switch over your
body chemistry for ongoing weight loss.

Similarly, the purpose of the fat fast is not to lose wieght, but to
switch over biochemistry for those whom are metabolically resistant,
who don't switch over during normal induction.

IMO, both induction and the fat fast are extreme measures for
correcting extreme imbalances. The smart way to do Atkins is
as-written, using the OWL phase for weight loss after correcting the
imbalance.

Using prolonged induction and/or the fat fast for weight loss turns
Atkins into just another fad diet rather than a true lifestyle change,
which is what Atkins taught.

Atkins is very clear that the fat fast is for those who are
metabolically resistant, who do not lose any weight or enter ketosis in
a month of induction. It's preliminary to weight loss, to prep your
body for the loss to come.

And it makes no sense to use it for weight loss. It's like... people
with broken legs can walk better with casts, therefore healthy people
decide to put on casts in order to walk better. No, I don't think so.

Luna said:

Not gonna happen. Low-carb has, apparently, permanently wounded my once
voracious appetite.

This has happened to me too. I can never get my money's worth at a
buffet anymore.

You *think* you would, cause you're not gonna eat the cheap starchy
fillers and are gonna fill up on meats, but it turns out you just can't
eat that much. And if you add in some salad, you have no chance
whatsoever of getting your money's worth.