SUCCESS STORIES:LOW CARB ATKINS OR SOUTH BEACH!

texanintokyo

I'm in Japan to and everything here is noodles and bread, pastries and breaded fried things or things wrapped in a dumpling type outer shell.

SArnol007

I had done a low carb diet. I kept my carbs under 50g per day, sometimes less than 25g. I did P90x alongside and dropped from 167 to 138 in about 1 month. Well when the semester started I stopped working out and didn't do the low carb diet and in about 4 months I was 186 pounds.

Last week Monday I was 207 and now im 196 pounds. Well now Im back on the low carb diet but decided to make a lifestyle change, after low carbing for a month, I plan to keep my carbs under 100g FORVER(well at least try) and never stop working out. O I also do Herbalife, and P90x on this I am roughly about 50g of carbs a day. So far so good, but still to soon to tell

pcastagner

I'm in Japan to and everything here is noodles and bread, pastries and breaded fried things or things wrapped in a dumpling type outer shell.

There are only two crappy things about Japan.

1)hard to keep protein up
2) I have to leave at the end of the month

Factory_Reset

IN

for pics of bacon

mrmagee3

I did South Beach several years ago and lost 20 lbs in around a month, then promptly gained it back over the next 6 months. I was always drained and my wife says I was irritable. If you make the switch to low carb, it really has to be a lifestyle thing. The principals are Ok, but it will be really tough if you are exercising (South Beach Diet even says that if you are in an exercise program that you need carbs, but doesn't really elaborate). Some of the principals are the same in the Men's Health Abs Diet, but I like it much better.

The problem with ketogenic diets or very low carb diets is that if you do any type of strength training or a significant amount of exercise, then unless you do periodic carb refeeds where you eat a massive amount of carbs on a single day, your body cannot replenish liver glycogen and muscle glycogen and your fitness oriented goals will not be met. Also when your body switches from carbs to ketones from fat as the main fuel for energy, one often becomes irritable, weak, tired, and overall can feel terrible. This does pass, but the lack of stored glycogen for muscle energy will remain a problem.

I think some studies have shown that the main impact of ketogenic diets on athletic performance comes at the explosive points -- sprinting, weight lifting, etc., where endurance atheletes (marathoners, bicyclists, etc.) tend to see less negative impact.

Though most people, I think, if they were serious about athletic performance and keto together, would likely switch to CKD or TKD in any case.

mrmagee3

Nobody said low carb is unsustainable

Several people did, in fact, say that.

Nobody said that you should not practice low carb if you prefer it

This was also said.

AJ_G

I don't care what anyone says...100 calories of chips will never be healthier than 100 calories of carrots...even IIFYM!! Common sense. The end.

Ok, back to the success stories lol

A single food is not healthy or unhealthy by itself without context. Food is either healthy or unhealthy in the context of your daily intake. For example, if you have already hit your daily goals for all of your micronutrients, and you have 200 calories, 12g of fat, and 22 carbs remaining for the day, then a glazed doughnut from krispy kreme would be a healthy choice given the context of your intake that day. If you have already hit your macro, micro, and calorie goals for the day, then any fruit or vegetable you eat is going to be an unhealthy choice because it will cause you to exceed your calorie goal for the day. People who eat fast food a majority of the time are often very unhealthy. This is not because fast food is unhealthy, but instead because these people are over consuming in general. Yes fast food has a higher mass quantity of fat in it which makes most fast food very calorically dense, but if you're logging all your intake and not exceeding calorie goals, and hitting macro and micro goals, fast food can be a very healthy choice. You can't blame the food their eating, you have to blame the quantities they're eating.

You label foods as healthy or clean and other foods as unhealthy or unclean, and say that healthy foods make you healthy and unhealthy foods make you unhealthy because you have probably been told this your whole life. I personally know a lot of people who eat NOTHING but "clean", "healthy" foods, but they over consume and they are overweight, out of shape, and obese. Your view of nutrition is skewed. Do some research, don't just listen to what people tell you, always be questioning what you're told and seek the scientific truth for yourself.

AJ_G

I did South Beach several years ago and lost 20 lbs in around a month, then promptly gained it back over the next 6 months. I was always drained and my wife says I was irritable. If you make the switch to low carb, it really has to be a lifestyle thing. The principals are Ok, but it will be really tough if you are exercising (South Beach Diet even says that if you are in an exercise program that you need carbs, but doesn't really elaborate). Some of the principals are the same in the Men's Health Abs Diet, but I like it much better.

The problem with ketogenic diets or very low carb diets is that if you do any type of strength training or a significant amount of exercise, then unless you do periodic carb refeeds where you eat a massive amount of carbs on a single day, your body cannot replenish liver glycogen and muscle glycogen and your fitness oriented goals will not be met. Also when your body switches from carbs to ketones from fat as the main fuel for energy, one often becomes irritable, weak, tired, and overall can feel terrible. This does pass, but the lack of stored glycogen for muscle energy will remain a problem.

I think some studies have shown that the main impact of ketogenic diets on athletic performance comes at the explosive points -- sprinting, weight lifting, etc., where endurance atheletes (marathoners, bicyclists, etc.) tend to see less negative impact.

Though most people, I think, if they were serious about athletic performance and keto together, would likely switch to CKD or TKD in any case.

I definitely agree with this. any type of endurance exercise uses mainly slow twitch muscle fibers which do not exclusively require glycogen, or require large amounts of glycogen in general. High intensity exercise like heavy lifting, or HIIT cardio causes fast twitch muscle fiber recruitment for which glycogen is highly consumed, so you would see definite performance issues with high intensity exercise, but you might be completely fine with endurance exercise on Keto

mrmagee3

You label foods as healthy or clean and other foods as unhealthy or unclean, and say that healthy foods make you healthy and unhealthy foods make you unhealthy because you have probably been told this your whole life. I personally know a lot of people who eat NOTHING but "clean", "healthy" foods, but they over consume and they are overweight, out of shape, and obese. Your view of nutrition is skewed. Do some research, don't just listen to what people tell you, always be questioning what you're told and seek the scientific truth for yourself.

Their overconsumption of a food does not make the food healthy or unhealthy. I personally don't like the terms healthy or unhealthy, as I think it's more of a spectrum -- certain foods are more nutritive than others. 100 calories of broccoli contains more good nutrients than 100 calories of table sugar. I think it's fine to say that broccoli is more healthy than table sugar.

To argue this at the edges, your argument would devolve into "if 1800 calories is your target, then 1800 calories of donuts is just as healthy as eating 1800 calories of a balanced diet". That's patently absurd, and confuses "weight loss" with "healthfulness".

pcastagner

You label foods as healthy or clean and other foods as unhealthy or unclean, and say that healthy foods make you healthy and unhealthy foods make you unhealthy because you have probably been told this your whole life. I personally know a lot of people who eat NOTHING but "clean", "healthy" foods, but they over consume and they are overweight, out of shape, and obese. Your view of nutrition is skewed. Do some research, don't just listen to what people tell you, always be questioning what you're told and seek the scientific truth for yourself.

Their overconsumption of a food does not make the food healthy or unhealthy. I personally don't like the terms healthy or unhealthy, as I think it's more of a spectrum -- certain foods are more nutritive than others. 100 calories of broccoli contains more good nutrients than 100 calories of table sugar. I think it's fine to say that broccoli is more healthy than table sugar.

To argue this at the edges, your argument would devolve into "if 1800 calories is your target, then 1800 calories of donuts is just as healthy as eating 1800 calories of a balanced diet". That's patently absurd, and confuses "weight loss" with "healthfulness".

I think the point is more that 100 cals of broccoli and 100 cals of sugar is a not too shabby 200 calories.

See how that works?

mrmagee3

You label foods as healthy or clean and other foods as unhealthy or unclean, and say that healthy foods make you healthy and unhealthy foods make you unhealthy because you have probably been told this your whole life. I personally know a lot of people who eat NOTHING but "clean", "healthy" foods, but they over consume and they are overweight, out of shape, and obese. Your view of nutrition is skewed. Do some research, don't just listen to what people tell you, always be questioning what you're told and seek the scientific truth for yourself.

Their overconsumption of a food does not make the food healthy or unhealthy. I personally don't like the terms healthy or unhealthy, as I think it's more of a spectrum -- certain foods are more nutritive than others. 100 calories of broccoli contains more good nutrients than 100 calories of table sugar. I think it's fine to say that broccoli is more healthy than table sugar.

To argue this at the edges, your argument would devolve into "if 1800 calories is your target, then 1800 calories of donuts is just as healthy as eating 1800 calories of a balanced diet". That's patently absurd, and confuses "weight loss" with "healthfulness".

I think the point is more that 100 cals of broccoli and 100 cals of sugar is a not too shabby 200 calories.

See how that works?

Which speaks to "can you lose weight eating this". It doesn't speak to, "are sugar and broccoli equally healthy".

Unless you equate losing weight with being healthy, at which point anorexia, bulimia, amputation...all healthy things.

AJ_G

You label foods as healthy or clean and other foods as unhealthy or unclean, and say that healthy foods make you healthy and unhealthy foods make you unhealthy because you have probably been told this your whole life. I personally know a lot of people who eat NOTHING but "clean", "healthy" foods, but they over consume and they are overweight, out of shape, and obese. Your view of nutrition is skewed. Do some research, don't just listen to what people tell you, always be questioning what you're told and seek the scientific truth for yourself.

Their overconsumption of a food does not make the food healthy or unhealthy. I personally don't like the terms healthy or unhealthy, as I think it's more of a spectrum -- certain foods are more nutritive than others. 100 calories of broccoli contains more good nutrients than 100 calories of table sugar. I think it's fine to say that broccoli is more healthy than table sugar.

To argue this at the edges, your argument would devolve into "if 1800 calories is your target, then 1800 calories of donuts is just as healthy as eating 1800 calories of a balanced diet". That's patently absurd, and confuses "weight loss" with "healthfulness".

I'm somehow not surprised that you took my example to the extreme, made it sound ridiculous, then discredited it. I never said anybody's diet should consist of all donuts or all junk food, that's absurd, and I also like how you compared 1800 calories of donuts to 1800 calories of "a balanced diet" instead of 1800 calories of brocolli, which by the way would be, get this, more unhealthy than 1800 calories of donuts because your body needs dietary fats to survive, but not carbs.

It all comes back to context and dosage to determine if a food is healthy in your diet or not. As long as a food helps you meet your macronutrient, micronutrient, fiber, and calorie goals for the day, then it is healthy. The one exception to this would be to limit or avoid intake of trans fats, including hydrogenated oils as much as possible.

As for weight loss vs. healthiness. Overweight people often have insulin resistance because they over consume. If someone were to lose weight by only eating junk foods, they would probably actually be healthier just because of the fact that they are losing weight. It is definitely better for you to be at a healthy weight level eating junk food, then to be obese and eating only "clean foods". That being said, it's even healthier to lose weight by hitting proper macro, micro, fiber, and calorie goals. The vast majority of non communicable diseases are caused by insulin resistance due to being overweight, and high cholesterol goes hand in hand with this because your blood cholesterol level is determined for the most part by the ratio of insulin to glucagon in your body. Many type 2 diabetics simply need to lose weight to correct for their insulin problem.

AJ_G

You label foods as healthy or clean and other foods as unhealthy or unclean, and say that healthy foods make you healthy and unhealthy foods make you unhealthy because you have probably been told this your whole life. I personally know a lot of people who eat NOTHING but "clean", "healthy" foods, but they over consume and they are overweight, out of shape, and obese. Your view of nutrition is skewed. Do some research, don't just listen to what people tell you, always be questioning what you're told and seek the scientific truth for yourself.

Their overconsumption of a food does not make the food healthy or unhealthy. I personally don't like the terms healthy or unhealthy, as I think it's more of a spectrum -- certain foods are more nutritive than others. 100 calories of broccoli contains more good nutrients than 100 calories of table sugar. I think it's fine to say that broccoli is more healthy than table sugar.

To argue this at the edges, your argument would devolve into "if 1800 calories is your target, then 1800 calories of donuts is just as healthy as eating 1800 calories of a balanced diet". That's patently absurd, and confuses "weight loss" with "healthfulness".

I think the point is more that 100 cals of broccoli and 100 cals of sugar is a not too shabby 200 calories.

See how that works?

Which speaks to "can you lose weight eating this". It doesn't speak to, "are sugar and broccoli equally healthy".

Unless you equate losing weight with being healthy, at which point anorexia, bulimia, amputation...all healthy things.

Please stop using a Straw Man fallacy in every one of your replies...

mrmagee3

I'm somehow not surprised that you took my example to the extreme, made it sound ridiculous, then discredited it. I never said anybody's diet should consist of all donuts or all junk food, that's absurd, and I also like how you compared 1800 calories of donuts to 1800 calories of "a balanced diet" instead of 1800 calories of brocolli, which by the way would be, get this, more unhealthy than 1800 calories of donuts because your body needs dietary fats to survive, but not carbs.

If, at it's logical conclusion, your argument fails, that's a problem with your argument.

It all comes back to context and dosage to determine if a food is healthy in your diet or not. As long as a food helps you meet your macronutrient, micronutrient, fiber, and calorie goals for the day, then it is healthy. The one exception to this would be to limit or avoid intake of trans fats, including hydrogenated oils as much as possible.

Again, foods do not exist in a vacuum. I won't even take this to the edge to demonstrate. First, I define "healthy" as "provides nutrition and promotes overall well-being" -- if you disagree with the definition, please feel free to refine.

If you're at 1800 calories, and you have 200 calories of donut or 200 calories of broccoli, you can eat either one, and look back on your food intake for the day, and check of "healthy" -- assuming that the other 1800 calories fit with your nutritional goals. Your argument seems to take as a given that there are no differences between 200 calories of donut and 200 calories of broccoli, despite the fact that broccoli is a far more nutrient dense food.

I fully reject that argument. A donut can bit fit into your eating plan without ill effect -- that doesn't make it equally as healthy as broccoli.

As for weight loss vs. healthiness. Overweight people often have insulin resistance because they over consume. If someone were to lose weight by only eating junk foods, they would probably actually be healthier just because of the fact that they are losing weight. It is definitely better for you to be at a healthy weight level eating junk food, then to be obese and eating only "clean foods". That being said, it's even healthier to lose weight by hitting proper macro, micro, fiber, and calorie goals. The vast majority of non communicable diseases are caused by insulin resistance due to being overweight, and high cholesterol goes hand in hand with this because your blood cholesterol level is determined for the most part by the ratio of insulin to glucagon in your body. Many type 2 diabetics simply need to lose weight to correct for their insulin problem.
[/quote]

AJ_G

If, at it's logical conclusion, your argument fails, that's a problem with your argument.

First off, it's not a logical conclusion, it's a straw man argument. You must not understand what that is because you keep using it, look it up. Nowhere did I say that someone's entire diet should consist of a single food, to the contrary. You took my argument of the healthiness of individual foods and extrapolated that to mean that since a donut can sometimes be healthy in the context of a daily intake, then it must be healthy as the sole intake for the day, that is an absurd leap.

If you're at 1800 calories, and you have 200 calories of donut or 200 calories of broccoli, you can eat either one, and look back on your food intake for the day, and check of "healthy" -- assuming that the other 1800 calories fit with your nutritional goals. Your argument seems to take as a given that there are no differences between 200 calories of donut and 200 calories of broccoli, despite the fact that broccoli is a far more nutrient dense food.

I fully reject that argument. A donut can bit fit into your eating plan without ill effect -- that doesn't make it equally as healthy as broccoli.

I'll quote my old post because you must not have read it...

A single food is not healthy or unhealthy by itself without context. Food is either healthy or unhealthy in the context of your daily intake. For example, if you have already hit your daily goals for all of your micronutrients, and you have 200 calories, 12g of fat, and 22 carbs remaining for the day, then a glazed doughnut from krispy kreme would be a healthy choice given the context of your intake that day. If you have already hit your macro, micro, and calorie goals for the day, then any fruit or vegetable you eat is going to be an unhealthy choice because it will cause you to exceed your calorie goal for the day.

Notice how I said if you already hit your daily goals for micronutrients? If this is the case, then broccoli is no more healthy than a donut, even though it is dense in micronutrients. By saying that filling your remaining 200 calories for the day with broccoli instead of a donut is healthier solely because the broccoli is more nutrient dense, you are ignoring the context of the rest of your diet for that day. Broccoli would actually be the worse choice in this situation, because it would leave you 12g of fat short of your daily goal, and if you do not hit your daily fat goal everyday, you open the door to problems. Dietary fat is important for hormone production, nutrient absorption, as well as brain and organ function. Also, eating 200 calories of broccoli in this situation would put you over your carb goal for the day as well as leaving you deficient in dietary fat for the day.

pcastagner

I think it would be great if at the end of this a few more people understand how to spot the straw man trick.


Point - broccoli and sugar can both fit in a healthy diet


Person would rather not argue this point because she will lose, so, she builds a straw man to argue against instead, because she wants to create an air of victory in the hopes it will fool someone (herself?) into listening to her. Sometimes, straw men are even more pointless than that, or just a way to distract so you can move on to a different point without addressing the one that completely defeats your entire argument:

Straw man - broccoli and sugar are equally healthy. Which she defeats easily by pointing out that they are not equal, or "equally healthy".


The problem with this is that the original point did not EQUATE broccoli with table sugar. The original point was that they both have their place in a reasonable diet. If you are painting a mural and there is no wall yet, you need bricks, mortar, and paint. This argument is a bit like assuming someone intends to build a wall out of paint, then calling them foolish.

Here is a handy diagram you can give to someone next time they attempt this subterfuge:

22dream

I love how people keep commenting atkins is a FAD DIET but have you done any research?? Its not like Atkins stays at 20 carbs for the rest of your life or even South Beach its made to end up founding your carb count for the rest of your life so that you maintain weight....just like with CALORIES!!! Some people cant go over and have to stay at a certain intake so whats the difference????

weight_in_vain

I lost about 60 pounds on South Beach fairly quickly. I immediately lost the 14 pounds during the phase 1 stage. i was quite pleased with my results and then Katrina hit! I found it very hard to maintain this diet and started to gain the weight back almost as fast as I lost it. I tried for years to get back on track with South Beach and could never do it. It was like my body had enough. Finally I realized it was a lost cause, and started to watch my calories instead.

I hope that you can achieve success and maintain it better than I did. I just notice that when I lose weight watching my calories and exercise, the weight stays off a lot longer even when I'm not perfect. I need a flexible diet and South Beach is definitely not that!

pcastagner

I love how people keep commenting atkins is a FAD DIET but have you done any research?? Its not like Atkins stays at 20 carbs for the rest of your life or even South Beach its made to end up founding your carb count for the rest of your life so that you maintain weight....just like with CALORIES!!! Some people cant go over and have to stay at a certain intake so whats the difference????

Interesting question, what is the difference between a fad diet and one that is not a fad.

Let me ponder that.

drcherokee

AJ, what you said is right. People who tend to eat fast food TEND to take in way too much, and that presents the problem. It's so easy to overeat fast food because, as you said, it's packed with a lot of calories and a lot of potentially bad stuff if taken in too-large of a dose.

As for me, I eat fast food almost on a daily basis. Do I eat a LOT of fast food on a daily basis? No, it's in small quantities. My blood pressure has dropped quite a bit since I've lost weight, although I still do need to reduce my salt intake. Am I perfectly meeting all my nutrient goals? No, but I'm significantly healthier and psychologically it keeps me on my eating plan to JUST worry about calories and not "go overboard."

I'm happy if people are losing on low carb diets...if it works, it works. However, low-cal is (in my opinion) the way to go long term unless you have other issues (diabetes, PCOS, etc.).

timwhoa

I have been on atkins now for 3 months, now down 62 pounds

snowmanluv

I have tried many diets and fads over the years. What works best for me is indeed controlling the sugars. I don't go completely without (atkins). Instead I do the Carbohyrdrate Addicts Diet whereby 2 meals (more proteins) and the 3rd meal of the day regular. This just works with normal and consistency and not on a diet at all but lifestyle change. Atkins works to jump start and for those with insulin issues. It's so hard to keep that up through holidays and regular life.

mjga2043

I did South Beach several years ago and lost 20 lbs in around a month, then promptly gained it back over the next 6 months. I was always drained and my wife says I was irritable. If you make the switch to low carb, it really has to be a lifestyle thing. The principals are Ok, but it will be really tough if you are exercising (South Beach Diet even says that if you are in an exercise program that you need carbs, but doesn't really elaborate). Some of the principals are the same in the Men's Health Abs Diet, but I like it much better.

This is what I found when I tried to do a low carb diet. I remember I ate some egg and cheese low carb breakfast thing I had made and then went and ran a 5K. It was my worst time ever and I thought I was going to barf halfway through. Usually coffee and a banana do me fine before a run. Never again with eggs and cheese!!

mjga2043

I lost about 60 pounds on South Beach fairly quickly. I immediately lost the 14 pounds during the phase 1 stage. i was quite pleased with my results and then Katrina hit! I found it very hard to maintain this diet and started to gain the weight back almost as fast as I lost it. I tried for years to get back on track with South Beach and could never do it. It was like my body had enough. Finally I realized it was a lost cause, and started to watch my calories instead.

I hope that you can achieve success and maintain it better than I did. I just notice that when I lose weight watching my calories and exercise, the weight stays off a lot longer even when I'm not perfect. I need a flexible diet and South Beach is definitely not that!

This is also interesting. I remember reading years ago that trying to go low carb multiple times does not always work. Like you get one or two chances at success and then the body isn't interested.

jenrobiwan

I had fantastic success with South Beach when I first started it 8 years ago. I was at a weight of 210 pounds. I dropped down to 170. I then went onto Weight Watchers, employing the basic SB diet principles and I lost an additional 10 pounds. Then.... I got pregnant. My first pregnancy I got up to 190 pounds. After ending breastfeeding (at 15 months), I went back on south beach and got down to 170 again. Then, life stresses took root, I hovered between 170 and 180. Not paying attentiont o myself too much. Pregnant again and got up to 210 pounds.

I just stopped breastfeeding a few months ago and I am back on SB diet again. However, this time, I am in it for the long haul. I am pretty sure the pregnancies are done (not completely writing this off yet!). I feel so much more energized when I am eating the SB way. Sugar REALLY affects me and is my downfall in being healthy, so for me it's an all or nothing. I can't eat just ONE cookie. Or ONE chip. So, I have to write them off completely.

I might look through old pictures to show my success previously. It certainly isn't the diet's fault that I did not succeed, it is my own. Good luck and I will definitely post pics as I succeed on this journey.

22dream

I have been on atkins now for 3 months, now down 62 pounds

That's great!!

tfpdunn

To me, I equate the average overweight person (non-diabetic/PCOS, etc) using Atkins to lose weight instead of eating at a caloric deficit to buying penny stocks and hoping they explode to become wealthy...instead of spending less than you make and investing in a broad growth portfolio.

Sure, you may have some great short term gains or really have incredible success, but for the vast majority of people interested in long term success (weight or financial) it is not an ideal long-term strategy.

itcanbedone13

bump

BattleTaxi

When people talk about fad diets on here I can only assume they haven't been reading the message boards.

smh...

mkbledsoe

I did well on South Beach and Atkins, but I am diabetic. I still had to count calories though, because I am a glutton. If I don't make record of every single thing I eat, I will overeat.