so frustrated!

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Doug Freyburger said:

Quoted message said:

> Now to be clear about the situation - You stayed at 20
> (or at least well below your CCLL) well past 6 months
> after the day you no longer had 100+ to lose, right? And
> at some point you noticed that you were no longer in
> ketosis even though you had no carb creep, right? You
> reacted by reducing your carbs further and further until
> you hit 15 total not even 15 net and you remained out of
> ketosis, right?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

YES!!! That is exactly what has happened and it's pissing me off!

....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're locked in a mindset that less
carbs must be better. It's not true no matter that JC
der K keeps harping it. Fail to eat more carbs and you
will most certainly stay in this mode of move deeper into
it. The hormones work that way.

I see.
So it gives me an excuse to eat some healthy carbs then.

Om, following the directions is all the excuse that's
needed. Ongoing Weight Loss phase 2, the carb ladder.
It's all about eating healthy carbs.

I may be pressuring you to increase carbs, but I'm not
pressuring you to not follow the directions. There's an
order to try stuff, a schedule to follow unless you're
going to try something like the reversal diet or switch
to CAD or whatever.

Quoted message said:

I just got that box of low carb pasta from Bev, and I love Italian.

If you're still doing near Induction go through the
carb ladder in order. Pasta, low carb or not, is made
with grain. Grain is several rungs along the carb
ladder.

Quoted message said:

There are quite a few carbs in spagetti sauce.

And it's great on various types of veggies before
you reach the carb ladder.

Quoted message said:

So how high should I go then?
Grams per day?

You want to follow the directions for pre-Maint. Pick
either 5 or 10 and move up in those increments until you
find the top of your Maintenance range. Going into
Inuit mode doesn't change the top of your Maintenance
range that I know of, it just pushes to bottom of that
range to zero.

Figuring you're still at 20, the weekly sequence would
be just like you're at day 15 right now: 25, 30, 35, 40,
45, 50 and so on by the week. On day 15 that sequence
goes until you spend a full week out of ketosis and the
best long term loss and fewest stalls happens 5-10
below the point that kicked you out of ketosis. In that
metabolic loophole rich-spot where the ketosis pulls
fat out of storage and the higher carb intake prevents
any leptin/T3 defense mechanism ranging from simple
starvation modes through Inuit mode.

But this time you won't stop just because you fell out
of ketosis. You're already out of ketosis at 20, too
late for that. You're looking for something else to
happen. I'll offer a couple of different explanations
for it so you can use any of them to figure out the
top of your Maintenance range.

If you've followed my postings you may have noticed
that I pressure newbies to get off the scale and if
you've followed many of my postings carefully you may
have noticed that I think the scale has different best
freqencies based on how far you are into the process.
You are no longer a newbie. Looking for the top of
your Maintenance range should take daily weighings.
You need that to track your water retention swings.
Men will see some amount of bounce from day to day
that after a month or two of monitoring they'll be
able to see. My swing is 6 pounds but it tends to be
smaller than that. Women will also have an additional
swing during their cycle.

So keep increasing on schedule week by week. At
some point your water swing will shift from some level
to a higher level and it will look like fat gain without
having increased total calories (increasing carbs equals
decreasing fat because increasing total calories is
not a part of the Atkins process outside of the initial
two weeks of Induction). Since you haven't gone up in
calories you haven't gained fat. Therefore your body
started storing carbs in water. Drop back down 10 or
so and your body won't store carbs any more. That's
your CCLM the top of your Maintenance range. Do a
week of Induction if you like to drain that stored
water.

The same point can also be identified by the restart of
cravings from any source of carbs, but that has to be
double checked against the Atkins-standard check for
food intolerances. Also from having appetite turn up
suddenly. Probably a few other ways to ID the same
event.

Okay, all that said about finding the top of your
Atkins Maintenance range, the question becomes whether
it was enough to break Inuit mode. Do a week or two
at 20 and see if you go into ketosis. If you do, it
was. If you don't it wasn't. If it wasn't, then a
low fat plan needs to be tried. Again, swapping more
carbs for less fat because increasing calories is not
a part of the process.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Plenty of sources of fat other than dairy. Dr A even
suggested caviar. Great advice for millionaires I
guess. There are plenty of sauage types that are
high fat. I like salami and pepperoni for that.
Every so often I'll have a smaller steak and a shot of
olive oil and dip the bits of meat in the oil rather
than having a larger well trimmed steak.

I like to dip my grilled meat in butter. Yum!

That or olive oil. It's very filling so a 4 oz steak
plus a shot glass of oil has around the same total
calories as a 6 or 7 oz trimmed steak and the 4 oz
one ends up at least as filling maybe even more so.

Quoted message said:

Jarred caviar (Romanoff brand Lumpfish caviar) is not all that
expensive and is yummy with cream cheese.

If you want to avoid dairy, there's always lettuce
leave wraps.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have 75 frickin' lbs. to lose.

Quoted message said:

And thus I claim you no longer qualify as having "a lot"
to lose. Note that you'll find people at or below their
ideal weight who insist that they have "a lot" to lose
so just saying it isn't enough. It has to mean soemthing
and a line has to be drawn. Go ahead and disagree with
me, but try charting who experiences what against how much
they have to lose and get some sort of data to base your
disagreement on. The more data you have, I suggest the
more you'll come to agree with me on the 100+ pounds
line.

I don't understand what you are getting at here?
For most people, 75 lbs. is a lot of weight.

Nearly everyone claims they have "a lot" of weight to lose,
even folks already at their ideal weight. Saying and
feeling you have a lot to lose can't possibly cut it as a
definition because then everyone would claim it. There
has to be a numerical point that qualifies. Ideally it
would be based on blood hormone levels and customized
per individual the way Atkins CCLL works. Hormones fall
below some threshold and you no longer have a lot to lose.
Great idea, not doable in actual practice.

Lacking a cutomized test, the solution is to apply data
to the problem and look for statistical thresholds. I
have tracked postings for over 6 years at this point
and there is a point where the numbers change behavior.
It is at 100+ to lose. Few stalls above, many below.
For those who blow off my statistics as scientifically
invalid, show me anyone anywhere who has gathered better
data and I'll accept your point. Until then my poor
data remains the only data and data beats arm waving.
None who have objected to my statistics have ever
offered anything better and thus have not offered
anything but arm waving. I challenge any and all to
beat the quality of my numerical data from counting
posts; it would rule to have scientiifically valid
data on the topic.

It has to be 100+ until better data comes available
because the available data says that's where the
rollover in statistical behavior happens. Above that
there doesn't seem to be a risk of Inuit mode. Below
that, lots of people still want to make the claim but
the numbers don't back them up. Hard data versus
feelings. It's harsh sounding, it runs against
intuition, and folks dislike it. That's the way it
goes when the data comes in and the data says something
not obvious.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How long ago was it that you have 100+ to lose? The
6 month clock started ticking that week.

Oh gee, let's see, I'd say March.

Ticking off the months between now and then that's 6-7
months. You're hitting Inuit mode in what Dr A claimed
to be the minimum time. So did I. And you've been on
thyroid pills longer than I have and your prescription
is both stronger and fancier than mine. I strongly
suspect that hypothroid is linked to how fast folks
drop into Inuit mode but there isn't the data for me
to reach that conclusion. Ive corresponded with around
a dozen folks in it in the last 6 years, insufficient
to graph, and I haven't gotten thyroid numbers from all
of them, very insufficient for a conclusion.

Knowing how leptin levels drive T3 levels, I suspect
but can't conclude that there's a cluster of being
able to gain fast, lose fast, initially get into ketosis
easily, having hypothyroid, that all come together to
make it easier to enter Inuit mode. For my this is a
hypothesis with insufficient evidence to call a theory
that I have no way to test. So year by year I try to
gather demographic data on it and I'm still far from
having enough the way I do with the behavior change
at 100+ to lose.

Quoted message said:

I'm just starting to come off of a long stall as well.
I lost 45 lbs. starting from Jan. 4th and lost 15 lbs. the first month,
then 10 lbs. in Feb. March and less in April, then started stalling
after that.

Good loss rates until you dropped below the 100+
threshold. Then staying at 20 interferred with your
lose. Yup, extremely common pattern among folks I've
tracked for the last 6 years. Staying at 20 does in
fact cause stalls. And the solution is in fact to
follow the directions and increase carbs on schedule.
Doing so either on day 15 or in the week you no longer
have 100 to lose does prevent both stalls and Inuit mode.
It's something I've been repeating on ASDLC for years
and folks do not want to hear it. The reason I keep
harping on it is repetition is needed to get through
to folks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lower T3 is driven by lower carb intake per the
studies.

Yes, but Thyrolar supplements T3, not just T4.
Look into Cytomel, see if you can get a 'scrip.
It's JUST T3.

T3-only supplementation should have *zero* effect
on anything. It's output is driven by history of
dietary carbs. Mostly from leptin levels but the body
would likely have at least one other backup mechanism.
Supplement and the thyroid would simply further reduce
it's T3 output without changing its T4 output as
opposed to trading T3/T4 for roughly the same total
output. It would be like giving a dog vitamin-C
supplements. Dogs synthesize their own ascorbic acid
it it isn't a vitiman for them. They would just
synthesize less to take their dietary intake into
account. More in the food does not always mean more
in the blood.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you follow the directions and use the carb ladder as
it is designed, you will discover carb foods that you are
not addicted to, and likely carb foods you are addicted
to. Maybe it will be individual triggers like me wheat
allergy, maybe it will be blood sugar swing driven and
be any food more than some glycemic load. Doesn't matter
how it turns out. You CAN NOT progress without adding
carbier foods.

I can eat more healthy veggies and avoid really starchy stuff or sugar.
Maybe some grapefruit in the mornings... I miss that!

Non-berry fruits are only a few steps down the carb ladder.
How does it go again? More low carb veggies, fresh cheeses,
tree nuts, berries, non-berry fruit, root veggies, legumes,
whole grains and so on. Something like that order.

Quoted message said:

Oat bran with fresh yogurt and splenda used to be a standard for
breakfast. Lowered my cholesterol too! I can make my own yogurt.

Oats are grain, grain appears in the carb ladder, so you
know what to try when.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What should you do? Trade carbs for fat for the same
total calories. Much higher carbs, much lower fat.
The farther you push that the faster and more effective
your reset will be. Do the Susan Powter Stop the Insanity
thing (actually Start the insanity for most of us low
carbers) and it might only take a couple of weeks. Do
a milder system like CAD and it might take many months.

I see.

Most of what I've written above is how to follow the
standard Atkins pre-Maint process and then using it to
see if that was enough. If you resist trying low fat
it's what to try first. At very least it prepares you
for Maintenance ("If you fail to prepare you prepare to
fail"😉. But a short term switch of 1-2 weeks to low
fat would probably work. My problem with that is you
would be then tempted to return to Induction levels
again and get yourself into Inuit mode trouble again.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure so I
want you to neverhave to worry about Inuit mode again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now that I know that leptin from the liver somehow tracks
the highest carb intake in recent months, I think the
approach is to go high carb for a week, then return to
low carb for 1-4 weeks to see if it worked, then repeat
if needed.

Quoted message said:

Low carb is not a matter of less is better. Low carb
is a matter of right-sizing.

I appreciate you taking the time to post me.

I put myself into Inuit ignoring the directions and
letting myself stay too low for too long. I did it
because it was *easy* not because I truely believed that
my loss rate would be better at lower carbs (I started
OWL on day 15 no matter that I didn't believe it. The
belief came with the hard numbers as I advanced to my
CCLL). Since i did it to myself and it took me a year
to recover and then at least 3 years to learn *why* it
had happened, I am highly motivated to teach the subject.
i want people to learn from my mistake and never get
into Inuit mode in the first place. I want people to
learn from my studies and to be able to cure their own
damage without a year of maintenance.

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

Quoted message said:

I put myself into Inuit ignoring the directions and
letting myself stay too low for too long. I did it
because it was *easy* not because I truely believed that
my loss rate would be better at lower carbs (I started
OWL on day 15 no matter that I didn't believe it. The
belief came with the hard numbers as I advanced to my
CCLL). Since i did it to myself and it took me a year
to recover and then at least 3 years to learn *why* it
had happened, I am highly motivated to teach the subject.
i want people to learn from my mistake and never get
into Inuit mode in the first place. I want people to
learn from my studies and to be able to cure their own
damage without a year of maintenance.

Doug, I'd just like to say that I find your posts very interesting. I have
quite a collection of them saved!

Thanks.

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/76/72Kg

I am just not understanding how eating more carbs is going to get one
back in to ketosis. Ketosis is what happens when your body runs out of
carbs. There are two sources of carbs - dietary, and those the liver
makes from protein via gluconeogenesis. If you are out of ketosis, and
only eating 20g of carbs a day, well then you must be getting too much
protein, and your body is converting it to glucose.

The solution is increase fat consumption and decrease protein intake,
as Atkins suggests (fat fast).

Doug Freyburger said:

Om, following the directions is all the excuse that's
needed. Ongoing Weight Loss phase 2, the carb ladder.
It's all about eating healthy carbs.

I may be pressuring you to increase carbs, but I'm not
pressuring you to not follow the directions. There's an
order to try stuff, a schedule to follow unless you're
going to try something like the reversal diet or switch
to CAD or whatever.

[snip...]

Quoted message said:

You want to follow the directions for pre-Maint. Pick
either 5 or 10 and move up in those increments until you
find the top of your Maintenance range. Going into
Inuit mode doesn't change the top of your Maintenance
range that I know of, it just pushes to bottom of that
range to zero.

Figuring you're still at 20, the weekly sequence would
be just like you're at day 15 right now: 25, 30, 35, 40,
45, 50 and so on by the week. On day 15 that sequence
goes until you spend a full week out of ketosis and the
best long term loss and fewest stalls happens 5-10
below the point that kicked you out of ketosis. In that
metabolic loophole rich-spot where the ketosis pulls
fat out of storage and the higher carb intake prevents
any leptin/T3 defense mechanism ranging from simple
starvation modes through Inuit mode.

But this time you won't stop just because you fell out
of ketosis. You're already out of ketosis at 20, too
late for that. You're looking for something else to
happen. I'll offer a couple of different explanations
for it so you can use any of them to figure out the
top of your Maintenance range.

If you've followed my postings you may have noticed
that I pressure newbies to get off the scale and if
you've followed many of my postings carefully you may
have noticed that I think the scale has different best
freqencies based on how far you are into the process.
You are no longer a newbie. Looking for the top of
your Maintenance range should take daily weighings.
You need that to track your water retention swings.
Men will see some amount of bounce from day to day
that after a month or two of monitoring they'll be
able to see. My swing is 6 pounds but it tends to be
smaller than that. Women will also have an additional
swing during their cycle.

So keep increasing on schedule week by week. At
some point your water swing will shift from some level
to a higher level and it will look like fat gain without
having increased total calories (increasing carbs equals
decreasing fat because increasing total calories is
not a part of the Atkins process outside of the initial
two weeks of Induction). Since you haven't gone up in
calories you haven't gained fat. Therefore your body
started storing carbs in water. Drop back down 10 or
so and your body won't store carbs any more. That's
your CCLM the top of your Maintenance range. Do a
week of Induction if you like to drain that stored
water.

The same point can also be identified by the restart of
cravings from any source of carbs, but that has to be
double checked against the Atkins-standard check for
food intolerances. Also from having appetite turn up
suddenly. Probably a few other ways to ID the same
event.

Okay, all that said about finding the top of your
Atkins Maintenance range, the question becomes whether
it was enough to break Inuit mode. Do a week or two
at 20 and see if you go into ketosis. If you do, it
was. If you don't it wasn't. If it wasn't, then a
low fat plan needs to be tried. Again, swapping more
carbs for less fat because increasing calories is not
a part of the process.

And Om did mention in another thread that she smells ammonia so she is
converting protein to carbs when necessary. That's where the ammonia smell
comes from.
I did a google search for leptin when I saw this thread and the research
done to date says that overweight people generally produce an abundance of
leptin, but like developing a reduction in insulin sensitivity in
pre-diabetes, they're not able to respond to the leptin properly either. So
increasing leptin levels doesn't do anything to promote fat loss for them.
The research going on now is to see if and how they can increase the leptin
sensitivity, not the levels being produced.

joshv said:

I am just not understanding how eating more carbs is going to get one
back in to ketosis. Ketosis is what happens when your body runs out of
carbs. There are two sources of carbs - dietary, and those the liver
makes from protein via gluconeogenesis. If you are out of ketosis, and
only eating 20g of carbs a day, well then you must be getting too much
protein, and your body is converting it to glucose.

The solution is increase fat consumption and decrease protein intake,
as Atkins suggests (fat fast).

-----
Bev

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freyburger said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

<snipped rest of post>
I have stored this to my nutrition file for later reference. :-)

Since I've been "stalled" for 3 months, I have to assume that the upper
range for maintenance at this moment is 15 to 20. No ketones at all for
the past month until just the past few days, but I've now cut carbs to
either 1 can of spinach or 1 can of string beans per day and a small
amount of mushrooms.

Traded out a bunch of protein for fat calories and my weight started
FINALLY dropping again about 5 days ago with a trace to moderate urine
ketones.

Diet looks like this right now: Meal 1, 8 oz. sirloin steak or lean
chicken, grilled and served with 2 tbs. butter for dipping. 1/2 can
spinach or string beans with mushrooms served with whatever butter was
left over from the meat.

Meal 2, see above.

Meal 3, 2.5 oz. cream cheese with 2 tbs. of pace mild chunky picante
sauce.

Satisfying and I can don't always finish the 8 oz. of meat since I get
stuffed easily. (who needs WLS to shrink the stomach? <G>😉.

Anyway, I've been losing 1/2 lb. per day ATM but will not report true
success at breaking that damned stall until I drop below 220. Right now
I'm at 225 and falling.

I appreciate the advice but you can understand how I feel after
experiencing a 90 day frickin' stall! If I stall again, then I'll
increase carbs.

I did do a carb re-feed last week and the previous week before going on
the higher fat tweaking so that might very well have helped, but I
gained 4 lbs. doing it. The re-feed lasted 2 weeks and I still stayed
around 1,500 KC per day.

Sux to be me, but I'll make it. ;-)

I also upped the daily lifecycle ride to level 7 which I'm sure is
helping..... Once I hit level 10 and can endure that for 30 minutes,
I'll be switching to the stairmaster.

Cheers!
--
Om.

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

joshv said:

I am just not understanding how eating more carbs is going to get one
back in to ketosis.

Understanding or not is irrelevant. Seriously.
There are folks who don't understand howe the
seasons work but autumn still follows summer.
Eating more carbs does in effect get folks back
into ketosis, and it is a strategy included in
the book.

Quoted message said:

Ketosis is what happens when your body runs out of
carbs.

Incorrect, and partially for the reason you cite.
The body never does run out of carbs because carbs
are synethized from other fuels.

Ketosis is what happens when your body cuts its
insulin level enough to switch to burning fat as the
majority fuel AND also when its glucagon level is
high enough that fats are converted to ketones.
Eat sufficiently low carbs for sufficiently long
and the body does in fact fall out of ketosis.
Go test an Inuit for ketones some time, one of the
ones who still live the traditional hunting lifestyle
on the ice. They are not in ketosis and they do not
eat enough dietary carbs. They break your simplified
theory.

Quoted message said:

The solution is increase fat consumption and decrease protein intake,
as Atkins suggests (fat fast).

Incorrect. Read again the qualifications for the
fat fast. It is for people who failed to get into
ketosis at 20, and that is a very different thing than
being for people who used to be able to get into
ketosis at 20 and no longer can.

The way this stuff works isn't easy to understand.
You have preconceived notions about it. You are
clinging to those preconceived notions and looking
to justify your statements. Go test an Inuit for
ketones. Better yet, follow the directions for OWL
in the first place and never need to deal with the
situation.

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Traded out a bunch of protein for fat calories and my weight started
FINALLY dropping again about 5 days ago with a trace to moderate urine
ketones.

That is my standard issue stall busting method.

Quoted message said:

I appreciate the advice but you can understand how I feel after
experiencing a 90 day frickin' stall! If I stall again, then I'll
increase carbs.

Right. You feel frustrated that less-is-more did not
work and you are unwilling to step out in faith. You
didn't do it on day 15 following Dr A's directions, so
why should you try something wierd sounding that you
read on the Internet.

Quoted message said:

I did do a carb re-feed last week and the previous week before going on
the higher fat tweaking so that might very well have helped

Depends on how much you carbed up whether you have already
acheived your end of correcting your CCLL. Two ways to
find out - OWL or Inuit mode.

Quoted message said:

but I gained 4 lbs. doing it.

Correction - You retained 4 pounds of water doing it. If
you do not learn the difference between water retention
and fat gain you're in for a lifetime of self-imposed
frustration. Think aobut how much water you lost during
Induction. Was it at least 4?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freyburger said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Traded out a bunch of protein for fat calories and my weight started
FINALLY dropping again about 5 days ago with a trace to moderate urine
ketones.

That is my standard issue stall busting method.

Quoted message said:

I appreciate the advice but you can understand how I feel after
experiencing a 90 day frickin' stall! If I stall again, then I'll
increase carbs.

Right. You feel frustrated that less-is-more did not
work and you are unwilling to step out in faith. You
didn't do it on day 15 following Dr A's directions, so
why should you try something wierd sounding that you
read on the Internet.

Quoted message said:

I did do a carb re-feed last week and the previous week before going on
the higher fat tweaking so that might very well have helped

Depends on how much you carbed up whether you have already
acheived your end of correcting your CCLL. Two ways to
find out - OWL or Inuit mode.

Quoted message said:

but I gained 4 lbs. doing it.

Correction - You retained 4 pounds of water doing it. If
you do not learn the difference between water retention
and fat gain you're in for a lifetime of self-imposed
frustration. Think aobut how much water you lost during
Induction. Was it at least 4?

I lost the original 4 lbs. gained plus 2 more.

Water retention is not an issue.

I take Torosemide PRN.
I can lose 3 lbs. in 5 hours. ;-)

Cheers!
--
Om.

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

Doug Freyburger said:

Understanding or not is irrelevant. Seriously.
There are folks who don't understand howe the
seasons work but autumn still follows summer.

Wonderful, not sure what that has to do with anything.

Quoted message said:

Eating more carbs does in effect get folks back
into ketosis, and it is a strategy included in
the book.

Atkins says it, so it must be so.

Quoted message said:

Incorrect, and partially for the reason you cite.
The body never does run out of carbs because carbs
are synethized from other fuels.

No, correct, the body generates ketone bodies as a result of the
metabolic pathways that are activated by carbohydrate starvation.

Quoted message said:

Ketosis is what happens when your body cuts its
insulin level enough to switch to burning fat as the
majority fuel AND also when its glucagon level is
high enough that fats are converted to ketones.
Eat sufficiently low carbs for sufficiently long
and the body does in fact fall out of ketosis.

I think we agree on that.

Quoted message said:

Go test an Inuit for ketones some time, one of the
ones who still live the traditional hunting lifestyle
on the ice. They are not in ketosis and they do not
eat enough dietary carbs. They break your simplified
theory.

Unfortunately, I do not have any Inuit handy. Perhaps you could give
me a reference that backs your claims? Everything I can find backs
mine, ketosis is the result of carbohydrate starvation:

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb2/part1/fatcatab.htm
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=274
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The solution is increase fat consumption and decrease protein intake,
as Atkins suggests (fat fast).

Incorrect. Read again the qualifications for the
fat fast. It is for people who failed to get into
ketosis at 20, and that is a very different thing than
being for people who used to be able to get into
ketosis at 20 and no longer can.

I would suggest that people who are not in ketosis have adapted to
burning their ketones instead of dumping them in to their blood stream
and urine, or their body has downregulated these pathways to produce
only as much energy as they need in the form of ketone bodies. Is
there something wrong with that?

Quoted message said:

The way this stuff works isn't easy to understand.
You have preconceived notions about it.

Preconceived? I've read rather widely on the topic. I don't know that
my notions of ketosis are any less informed than yours.

Quoted message said:

You are
clinging to those preconceived notions and looking
to justify your statements.

? If you are willing to give me some references that explain your point
scientifically, I am more than willing to stop "clinging".

Quoted message said:

Go test an Inuit for
ketones.

Unfortunately not practical. Perhaps you could provide some references
which substantiate your claims.

Quoted message said:

Better yet, follow the directions for OWL
in the first place and never need to deal with the
situation.

joshv said:

Doug Freyburger said:

Understanding or not is irrelevant. Seriously.
There are folks who don't understand howe the
seasons work but autumn still follows summer.

Wonderful, not sure what that has to do with anything.

Understanding is not relevant to stuff that actually
happens. I offered a simple well-known example of
the trend. You wrote that you did not understand.
Understanding or not is irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Eating more carbs does in effect get folks back
into ketosis, and it is a strategy included in
the book.

Atkins says it, so it must be so.

Incorrect. If it actually happens in real life and
if Dr A mentioned how to deal with it, his directions
are a good starting point. The fact is Dr A got
stuff wrong sometimes - his 2002 book claimed that
eating less carbs gives more loss which is easily
seen to be wrong in very many people. It is also
true that Dr A's writing skills were not up to the
task of describing the process he designed and as a
result there are parts of his books that are regularly
misunderstood. Nonetheless the process he designed
is better than most people imagine.

None of that is relevant to actual experimental and
experiental results. I did end up in what I call
Inuit mode, I did read though the book to see if others
had and Dr A had any advice, I did find the reversal
diet in the 1993 edition, I did increase carbs, I did
get back into ketosis. I also did not follow his
exact instructions but did something less extreme. I
tried a year of maintenance and after that I got into
ketosis just fine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Incorrect, and partially for the reason you cite.
The body never does run out of carbs because carbs
are synethized from other fuels.

No, correct, the body generates ketone bodies as a result of the
metabolic pathways that are activated by carbohydrate starvation.

Again missing the long term truth by presenting the
short term truth. Since it happens early on then it
must happen forever, right? Wrong. Consider all the
wierd stuff that happens to assorted people during
Induction. Lots of folks conclude they are normal
because they've never seen anything else. Folks
expect dark tests on the stick to last forever, the
headaches or various other detox symptoms. Folks see
the water loss aspects of Induction and hope it to
continue forever. It doesn't. The simple fact is
the body adjusts on various time scales. Sometimes
that adjustment is beneficial like the completion of
detox after Induction. Sometimes it is not (for fat
loss) like CCLL falling to zero.

And so here you are pointing out what happens
post-Induction and suggesting that it goes on forever.
In spite of the fact that it doesn't in Inuits, it
didn't in me, it didn't in enough people that Dr A
devised the reversal diet and so on. The body
adjusts based on how far its situation is from the
"normal". One of the principles of the Atkins process
is that loss is best at CCLL because it's a spot close
enough to "normal" that the body does not mount
defenses.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ketosis is what happens when your body cuts its
insulin level enough to switch to burning fat as the
majority fuel AND also when its glucagon level is
high enough that fats are converted to ketones.
Eat sufficiently low carbs for sufficiently long
and the body does in fact fall out of ketosis.

I think we agree on that.

It is an observed fact. By the way, it is not a
guarantee that folks will all go into Inuit mode. All
Inuits do, all folks who have adopted the all raw/rare
meat diet have, but we're not talking about actual
zero dietary carbs here. The level of 20 is enough
that Dr A didn't see problems until 6 months past the
point of no longer having "a lot" to lose so he put
that 6 month limit in there. I've encountered someone
who didn't go into Inuit mode until month 48 and some
who stay at 20 longer than that without hitting Inuit
mode. But I assure you you do not want to end up in
Inuit mode. It sucks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Go test an Inuit for ketones some time, one of the
ones who still live the traditional hunting lifestyle
on the ice. They are not in ketosis and they do not
eat enough dietary carbs. They break your simplified
theory.

Unfortunately, I do not have any Inuit handy. Perhaps you could give
me a reference that backs your claims? Everything I can find backs
mine, ketosis is the result of carbohydrate starvation:

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb2/part1/fatcatab.htm
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=274
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis

None 6 months and more past the point of no longer having
100+ to lose, right?

The reference is in the 1993 edition. You will respond
that it isn't a scientifically valid study. Acknowledged.
Does that make it a lie? Dr A started out by doing
tabular statistical studies. The AMA would not publish
his data. In the end Dr A gave up gathering data and
bragged about being a clinician not a scientist. I wish
I had his tabular data and I wonder if it still exists.

Still, if you will only accept published data I invite
you to conduct such a study. Start with 100 each folks
with 100+ to lose, 50-100 to lose, under 50 to lose. Put
a third on the 4-phases. Put a third on forever Induction.
Put a third on Inuit-style all raw/rare meat. Track their
loss rates and their ketosis for 5 years. Publish that
data. I would welcome it since it would beat any data
currently available.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The solution is increase fat consumption and decrease protein intake,
as Atkins suggests (fat fast).

Quoted message said:

Incorrect. Read again the qualifications for the
fat fast. It is for people who failed to get into
ketosis at 20, and that is a very different thing than
being for people who used to be able to get into
ketosis at 20 and no longer can.

I would suggest that people who are not in ketosis have adapted to
burning their ketones instead of dumping them in to their blood stream
and urine, or their body has downregulated these pathways to produce
only as much energy as they need in the form of ketone bodies. Is
there something wrong with that?

Health wise there is nothing wrong with being out of
ketosis not losing stored fat. For someone who does it
becaus ethey wish to lose stored fat it is indeed a
bit of a problem. Falling out of ketosis and no longer
losing any stored fat no matter how low carb you try to
go is certainly something wrong.

It's interesting that folks who follow the 4 phases on
schedule never have this problem. The 4 phase process is
designed with a lot more factors in mind than most ever
realize. One among the many is avoiding falling out of
ketosis and hitting a stall that would last for years.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freyburger said:

It's interesting that folks who follow the 4 phases on
schedule never have this problem. The 4 phase process is
designed with a lot more factors in mind than most ever
realize. One among the many is avoiding falling out of
ketosis and hitting a stall that would last for years.

The people that follow the 4 phase plan have patience. ;-)

That is not a common human virtue. <lol>

At least I think I've broken this frickin' stall!

Let's hear it for cream cheese with picante sauce.
It's quite tasty, and satisfying......
--
Om.

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

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Doug Freyburger said:

It's interesting that folks who follow the 4 phases on
schedule never have this problem. The 4 phase process is
designed with a lot more factors in mind than most ever
realize. One among the many is avoiding falling out of
ketosis and hitting a stall that would last for years.

The people that follow the 4 phase plan have patience. ;-)

I don't think it's patience. After all the actual loss rates
are better for those who follow the 4 phases than for those
who stay low according to Dr A and since staying low
causes stalls taht are cured by moving on to OWL I think
any method that gathered scientifically acceptable data on
the topic .

I think the virtue in question is faith. It is NOT obvious
that the 4 phases should work better than a fad diet
variation. Folks see that low carb means loss, so they
WANT lowER carb to mean better loss. In actual fact, the
4 phase plan works better for those willing to do it. Loss
rates are better, stalls are less frequent, dropout is
lower. But it takes a major leap of faith to move on to
25 on day 15 just because the regular directions tell you
to.

Quoted message said:

That is not a common human virtue. <lol>

Very true. Read this newsgroup. Read any support board.
Very very few people are willing to step out in faith
and follow the actual directions. Folks dig through the
book to find statements like there isn't any health risk
to staying low and they conclude they have found the
secret. Folks ignore entire chapters because those
chapters don't say the obvious. Few step out in faith.

Quoted message said:

At least I think I've broken this frickin' stall!

Excellent.