Research regarding target weight - is induction necessary?

JEK wrote:
:: Gina Kolata, who writes for the NY Times, has been forwarding the
:: idea that each individual has their own target weight range. She
:: cites research that indicates that when an individual falls below
:: their minimum, their metabolism changes and puts them in a
:: starvation mode so that eating is ucontrollable. He's an article

That sounds like nonsense. Few people ever get so small that eating is
uncontrollable. You sound trollish for even suggesting such. Have you ever
had "uncontrollabe" eating? Perhaps you did when you weight 300+ lbs, huh?

:: that explains it more in depth:
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/xxxxx

And what are we supposed to find there, your blog?

::
:: My own personal experience would seem to reflect what she says the
:: research indicated. I also believe this range changes with age (the
:: median increasing).

Who are you? What experience, exactly, do you have?

::
:: Frankly, I wonder if the idea of phases isn't flat out counter
:: productive. Simply put, why do you need induction?

Who says anyone *needs* induction? It's part of Atkins plan, devised for
reasons he thought were good (some of which having nothing to do with weight
loss). One doesn't *need* induction to lose weight, as many have obviously
done so without it. Goodness.

Invariably, high
:: rates of weight loss set unrealistic expectations. Instead of getting
:: a person a steady and maintainable WOE, they only teach behavior that
:: soon needs to be changed. I guess that's where I am going with this.

More BS. One is only on induction for two weeks.

:: Just figure out your diet from day 1. Do it. Be happy losing
:: approximately 1-2 lbs a week - if that - but know that in 6 mos you
:: will be eating exactly the same you are now and have also lost 40
:: lbs. Sure, you fine tune over time, but for the most part I see a lot
:: freedom in just eating now the way you intend to eat for the rest of
:: your life, regardless of how far you are from your goal weight.

Most people roll their own LC plan anyway. For most, Atkins just provides
ideas. Also, induction does have some value.

Here's the deal:

induction is necessary to break the sugar addiction we all have and didn't
realize we have.

Roger Zoul said:

That sounds like nonsense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?ex=1183262400&en=5d5e65120464f6a1&ei=5070

Read.

Pat said:

Here's the deal:

induction is necessary to break the sugar addiction we all have and didn't
realize we have.

But it the point is that its not necessary. Of course, I wonder why
the gas bag Zoul isn't ripping you a new one, but such is the mystery
of Usenet.

Excerpt from "Genes Take Charge, and Diets Fall by the Wayside" by
Gina Kolata

Every time the result was the same. The weight, so painstakingly lost,
came right back. But since this was a research study, the
investigators were also measuring metabolic changes, psychiatric
conditions, body temperature and pulse. And that led them to a
surprising conclusion: fat people who lost large amounts of weight
might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very
different. In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like
people who were starving.

Before the diet began, the fat subjects' metabolism was normal - the
number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no
different from that of people who had never been fat. But when they
lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories
per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by
those who were naturally thin.

The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-
starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal
weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized
about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and
depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their
rooms. And they binged.

The Rockefeller researchers explained their observations in one of
their papers: "It is entirely possible that weight reduction, instead
of resulting in a normal state for obese patients, results in an
abnormal state resembling that of starved nonobese individuals."

Eventually, more than 50 people lived at the hospital and lost weight,
and every one had physical and psychological signs of starvation.
There were a very few who did not get fat again, but they made staying
thin their life's work, becoming Weight Watchers lecturers, for
example, and, always, counting calories and maintaining themselves in
a permanent state of starvation.

Roger, this should be good for you. It's a V - I - D - E - O. I typed
extra slow just for you.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=86212

Pat said:

Here's the deal:

induction is necessary to break the sugar addiction we all have and didn't
realize we have.

I think you have a point to pick with Roger. I actually agree with
him. It's not necessary.

Pat said:

It is necessary IF you want to continued doing the Atkins diet.

We are not debating the prescription of the plan, just the sense of
that particular methodology in the face of certain research. Get it
now?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

induction is necessary to break the sugar addiction we all have and
didn't
realize we have.

But it the point is that its not necessary. Of course, I wonder why
the gas bag Zoul isn't ripping you a new one, but such is the mystery
of Usenet.

It is necessary IF you want to continued doing the Atkins diet. It is NOT
necessary to lose weight. That is what he said--that a person can lose
weight without doing the induction phase. Of course you can--but it's
necessary for the Atkins plan.

How come you can go on and on and don't realize you're a "gas bag"? Or is
that all it takes to disagree with someone--just call him a name and....oh
wait! You've been watching too many of those judge shows on daytime
television!

Pat in TX

Quoted message said:

x-no-archive: yes

JEK said:

Pat said:

It is necessary IF you want to continued doing the Atkins diet.

We are not debating the prescription of the plan, just the sense of
that particular methodology in the face of certain research. Get it
now?

It's essential for many morbidly obese folks who need the strong
appetite suppression it induces in order to succeed. It's not necessary
for everyone to succeed, nor did Atkins recommend it for those with
20lbs or less to lose, IIRC from the book.

Susan

JEK said:

Pat said:

It is necessary IF you want to continued doing the Atkins diet.

We are not debating the prescription of the plan, just the sense of
that particular methodology in the face of certain research. Get it
now?

Yup.

<plonk>

--
BlueBrooke
254/234/135

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is necessary IF you want to continued doing the Atkins diet.

We are not debating the prescription of the plan, just the sense of
that particular methodology in the face of certain research. Get it
now?

Here's the problem: you continue to treat other people who disagree with
your point of view as being "gas bags" or being incapable of having a
rational thought. This is not a reasonable way to have a discussion. Ergo,
you are not worthy of my time.

<plonk>

Pat in TX

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

It's essential for many morbidly obese folks who need the strong
appetite suppression it induces in order to succeed.

I started with a BMI of 38 so I just missed the cut in disproving what
I feel is an overly broad statement. The first time around, I did
induction then tried moving through the phases. My initial weight loss
was very dramatic but my transition to even the second phase of the
diet was difficult. I hit a plateau and had major hunger issues and
found myself at either the extremes of being on induction or off the
diet completely. Of course, that's me but the attrition of any change
in WOE is extremely high so I know that I am no where near being alone
on this.

I am approaching it differently this time. I basically skipped
induction and went right to what I envision would be a permanent
change in diet. I never dropped more than 2 lbs in a week but my
hunger was always in check and I have dropped 40 in about 6 months -
without induction. Of course, to mean anything in the grand scheme I
have to show I can stick to this for more than 6 months.But I have
significantly higher confidence that I keep doing exactly what I am
doing right now for the rest of my life, than the kind of phased
planning I had going through before.

Pat said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is necessary IF you want to continued doing the Atkins diet.

Quoted message said:

We are not debating the prescription of the plan, just the sense of
that particular methodology in the face of certain research. Get it
now?

Here's the problem: you continue to treat other people who disagree with
your point of view as being "gas bags" or being incapable of having a
rational thought.

First things first. You'll have to actually address what I wrote to
have a disagreement with me.

And the irony is that you're defending Roger's post as though he was
engaging me in a rational debate.

x-no-archive: yes

JEK said:

Susan said:

It's essential for many morbidly obese folks who need the strong
appetite suppression it induces in order to succeed.

I started with a BMI of 38 so I just missed the cut in disproving what
I feel is an overly broad statement. The first time around, I did
induction then tried moving through the phases. My initial weight loss
was very dramatic but my transition to even the second phase of the
diet was difficult. I hit a plateau and had major hunger issues and
found myself at either the extremes of being on induction or off the
diet completely. Of course, that's me but the attrition of any change
in WOE is extremely high so I know that I am no where near being alone
on this.

I am approaching it differently this time. I basically skipped
induction and went right to what I envision would be a permanent
change in diet. I never dropped more than 2 lbs in a week but my
hunger was always in check and I have dropped 40 in about 6 months -
without induction. Of course, to mean anything in the grand scheme I
have to show I can stick to this for more than 6 months.But I have
significantly higher confidence that I keep doing exactly what I am
doing right now for the rest of my life, than the kind of phased
planning I had going through before.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with doing what works for you. I
don't think anyone is going to extrapolate from your experience that
induction isn't necessary for anyone else, more generally.

My observation over many years here is that induction helps many
morbidly obese folks gain control over appetite, diminution of which is
a well documented effect of ketosis, for the first time in their lives.

I don't think induction is necessary for anyone who doesn't have such
appetite control issues.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

JEK said:

First things first. You'll have to actually address what I wrote to
have a disagreement with me.

And the irony is that you're defending Roger's post as though he was
engaging me in a rational debate.

I've been reading Roger's posts here for many years here, I think.

He's proven to be intelligent, thoughtful, civil and helpful over the
years.

You, OTOH...

Susan

Susan said:

He's proven to be intelligent, thoughtful, civil and helpful over the
years.

You're going to tell me he was any of the above in his response?

x-no-archive: yes

JEK said:

Susan said:

He's proven to be intelligent, thoughtful, civil and helpful over the
years.

You're going to tell me he was any of the above in his response?

I'm going to tell you that your posting style and attitude is of the
sort that really irritates, and that attacking a decade long valued
member of a community is no way to introduce yourself.

Susan

JEK said:

Gina Kolata, who writes for the NY Times, has been forwarding the idea
that each individual has their own target weight range. She cites
research that indicates that when an individual falls below their
minimum, their metabolism changes and puts them in a starvation mode
so that eating is ucontrollable. He's an article that explains it more
in depth:

The Atkins plan gives no advice whatsoever on what goal to
select. So what does this article have to do with Atkins?
It points out a weakness of Atkins that most experienced
low carbers already knew about. So what.

The low carb plan that does give advice on what goal to
select is Protein Power by Drs Eades.

Quoted message said:

My own personal experience would seem to reflect what she says the
research indicated.

That if you lose below some difficult to determine set
point there's a drive to regain? It's well known but not
addressed in the least by Atkins. Or is it ... Atkins
doesn't specify specific portions or calories just to use
ketosis to allow stored fat to reduce at the body's own
pace. Folks who do not drive their portions low tend
to stall out when they have somewhere in the reange of
10-30 pounds to lose. Maybe that's really the set
point.

Quoted message said:

All that said, my question is, if we take this as fact, shouldn't this
impact many of diet methodologies used in low carb?

No, just on goal selection. Look to PP.

Quoted message said:

I am more familiar
(though no expert) with Atkins, so I will use that as an example. As I
remember it, there are 4 phases and the phases changes depending on
how close you are your target weight.

Sorta. Phase 1 two weeks. Phase 2 until there's 10-20
left to lose. Phase 3 until there's 0 left to lose. Phase 4
until you decide to quit and gain it all back. So one of the
transitions is based on amount left to lose.

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I wonder if the idea of phases isn't flat out counter
productive.

Frankly, you're wondering if following the directions helps.
Yes, following the directions does help.

Quoted message said:

Simply put, why do you need induction?

Let's see. Dr A put two decades or more of work into the
design of the plan. Can you lose weight without following
his directions? Sure. Are you likely to do as well on your
own as you could by leveraging his two decades of work?
Nope.

Quoted message said:

Invariably, high
rates of weight loss set unrealistic expectations.

A standard issue discussed for very many years. On
Induction the rates of fat loss aren't high. The rate of
water loss is high. But there's only just so much water
to lose and once it's gone that's it and you're down to
only losing fat. Does the water loss set up false
expectations? Yup. But is water fat? Nope. The
trouble is it takes a long time to learn that fat isn't
water. Early on folks tend to focus on the scale and
not get such a point.

Quoted message said:

Instead of getting
a person a steady and maintainable WOE,

So Maintenance phase isn't intended to be long term?
Maybe you should read the book this time. Consider
how to get to Maintenance. By going through the rest
of the phases.

Quoted message said:

Just figure out your diet from day 1. Do it.

Atkins is a process where if you follow the directions
the process tells you what foods work well for you and
what foods you should avoid. It also tells you what
carb levels work for you and what don't. All custom
tuned to your own individual body. There's no way
that can be figured out on day 1. What you described
is a one-size-fits-all plan. Easy but it only works for
certain people.

Quoted message said:

Be happy losing
approximately 1-2 lbs a week

What does that have to do with Induction? Because of
the water loss during Induction the pounds lost during
that time have no meaning whatsoever for later loss.