Ok So......
annekejohnson
Posts: 49 Member
I know that under 1200 is low but I am over 100 lbs overweight and so the weight should still come off not be stuck. MFP put me on a 1400 calorie diet but I have a goal for January which I want to get close to. In the past I did an Atkins diet with no exercise and lost 70 lbs in 4 months and I know it's possible. This is why I'm so frustrated. I am eating regularly, sometimes a little over 1200 calories but there is absolutely no reason my body should go into starvation mode, I have 100 extra pounds!!! Just getting up and moving every day should burn more than I'm taking in by over 800 calories a day plus I'm exercising! The whole thing burn more than you take in.... I'm doing this I should be losing. I know this is possible and I don't understand why it worked last time and now NOTHING!
0
Replies
-
I know that under 1200 is low but I am over 100 lbs overweight and so the weight should still come off not be stuck. MFP put me on a 1400 calorie diet but I have a goal for January which I want to get close to. In the past I did an Atkins diet with no exercise and lost 70 lbs in 4 months and I know it's possible. This is why I'm so frustrated. I am eating regularly, sometimes a little over 1200 calories but there is absolutely no reason my body should go into starvation mode, I have 100 extra pounds!!! Just getting up and moving every day should burn more than I'm taking in by over 800 calories a day plus I'm exercising! The whole thing burn more than you take in.... I'm doing this I should be losing. I know this is possible and I don't understand why it worked last time and now NOTHING!0
-
Believe it or not it has. Even with 100 excess lbs your body has adjusted to account for the extra weight and now it wants to keep it. You have to eat to lose weight, and I can tell you that because I started with 107lbs to lose.
Atkins didn't work long term because you didn't incorporate exercise, and atkins is an extreme. Your BMI is the calories you need just to stay alive and with exercise you gain additional calories you should eat.
for example, in order for me to maintain my current weight I would have to eat 2600 calories a day. To lose a pound per week without exercise I would need to eat 2100 calories and with a goal of 2lbs per week I would want to aim for 1600.
when you exercise on top of the calorie restriction you do need to eat more. You should eat as many of your exercise calories as possible. So if to maintain I need to eat 2600 and I burn 500 then my calorie allowance for the day to maintain is 3100. But if I want to lose I can take that 1600 of restricted calories and add the 500 to it for a daily total of 2100 and still lose the 2 lbs per week.
If you are a long time dieter you may have a hard time with this concept but it does work. Rabbit food is not all you can eat when you take a healthy approach. You can eat real food, even treats and still lose weight if you are exercising everyday. IF you choose not to exercise then you need to eat less.
YOu must eat to lose and to keep it off you must exercise. that is all there is to it.0 -
I do not have as much to loose as you so you may just disregard this but I have been working my tail feathers off going to the gym 5 days a week and on 3 of those days I go twice... BUT... I tried to do a 1200 calorie restricted diet and Nich0le can tell you since I am on the Black team for weight loss I have only lost 2.5 pounds in a month and when I went back and looked at all my food entries when I was constantly loosing 1 lb or more a week... I was taking in a lot more then 1200 calories. I started back to eating more this past week on Saturday and when I weighed in this morning I had lost .5 lbs and havnt lost a thing in weeks... so as crazy as it may sound now... you really do want to eat more then that 1200 calories.0
-
Being an ex-South Beach Dieter, I understand that the frustration is coming from not being given a set thing you're allowed to eat and knowing how quickly I lost the pounds before.
But when I compare how I feel when I stay within my calories with good , healthy, hearty food and how I felt on SB eating enough string cheese and peanuts to stop up a horse.....good lord, I wouldn't go back to that ever again!!!
Also, it's messed with my metabolism and my will power. It takes a bit, and you have to retrain your brain, but believe me, this way is better! Go back and read through the Newbies in General Discussion. The links Banks posted in that thread are going to help you understand more and move forward down the correct path.
:flowerforyou:0 -
Ok but if that's the case then why was I able to lose 70 lbs before with no exercise???0
-
Point....
Because excercise isn't needed for fast weight loss. I didn't excercise either on SB. But if you want it to STAY off, excercise is necessary. Also, with fast weight loss, you lose not only fat but lean tissue (muscle).
How quickly did the weight come back for you? It took mine about.....two months of a desk job.0 -
You don't need exercise to lose weight. In fact, while exercise is great for the prevention of fat gain, it's pretty pitiful at treating fat gain once it's already happened. All you need is a caloric deficit. Exercise doesn't even help prevent muscle loss or down-regulation of the metabolism.
CALORIES, however, affect it immensely. Undereat, and you're setting yourself up for a long, tough road of very slow/no weight loss and a high % of the weight loss coming from muscle.
That said, low/no carb diets always results in a huge initial weight loss, but it's not fat. It's a loss of glycogen (stored blood sugar in the liver and muscles) and water (which binds to glycogen). You can lose 10 lbs in a week from cutting carbs, but it comes back once you eat them again. It has nothing to do with fat loss or gain.0 -
You don't need exercise to lose weight. In fact, while exercise is great for the prevention of fat gain, it's pretty pitiful at treating fat gain once it's already happened. All you need is a caloric deficit. Exercise doesn't even help prevent muscle loss or down-regulation of the metabolism.
CALORIES, however, affect it immensely. Undereat, and you're setting yourself up for a long, tough road of very slow/no weight loss and a high % of the weight loss coming from muscle.
That said, low/no carb diets always results in a huge initial weight loss, but it's not fat. It's a loss of glycogen (stored blood sugar in the liver and muscles) and water (which binds to glycogen). You can lose 10 lbs in a week from cutting carbs, but it comes back once you eat them again. It has nothing to do with fat loss or gain.
Now I have a question: How are you supposed to burn fat if, as you say, excercise is not needed? And what of all the nutrionalists saying the lean mass uses more energy and thus burns more calories at rest?0 -
The reason atkins worked so well at first is because you cut out carbs... carbs stores fat in yoiur body to give you energy. now I am insulin resistant.. i can not eat a lot of carbs but i have to eat some. IF I eat once a day .. I GAIN weight... if I eat many times aday but with good foods and stay away from high carbs and sugars I LOOSE.... dont ask why this is but it is.. your body is like a car .. i needs fuel all the time. and when it get low it drives badly. same thing with yoru body... alls i can say is eatting helps loose... some people can loose no problem but if you have struggled like most people on here... take the advice they give.... its good advice... now im not a big exersizer.. but I do watiress and i try to walk at least 3 times a week... and i did really well... as soon as i veered off track i gained my weight back... just think to your self this... how do you want to eat for life... Alls you need to do is portion control and watch your calories and sweets.... but you can still have them. This is just my experience... keep up the faith0
-
Ok if this was easy none of us would be overweight. You have to create a calorie deficit of about 1000 calories a day in order to lose 2 lbs a week.
It is easy, go online and google "how many calories do I need" and choose any of the sites and put in your CURRENT weight and find out how many calories you need to consume to to maintain your current weight and then reduce that amount by 500 for one pound and 1000 for two lbs per week. You can use calorie restriction alone or a combination of diet and exercise to do it.0 -
After you lost those initial 70 pounds by cutting out carbs, how much weight did you gain back? And at what cost did you lose those 70 pounds. Atkins and SB both are very dangerous diets to your liver, and general functioning and are not recognized by the American Dietetic Association.
If you want a healthy diet that will make you lose weight at a healthy pace (which is no more than 2 pounds a week) then go to http://www.mypyramid.gov/ this website is made by the USDA, so it is healthy, well researched, and recognized by the ADA.
I started out with 90 pounds to lose, and I know that 2 pounds a week sound painfully slow, but I lost 30 pounds so far in 4 months (this was before I joined fitpal) and if you do it this way, it will stay off.
I also strongly recommend exercise. No it is not completely vital to weight loss, but it has a slew of other benefits, such as lower blood pressure, lower depression, more energy...and the list goes on.
Remember that 1 pound of muscle burns about 40-50 calories a day and fat only burns 1-2. You can just start out with some walking. Since walking is very low intensity it will actually burn fat as a fuel source instead of calories (high intensity exercises like running and sprinting burn calories and glucose). You can do this anywhere as well. You don't have to join a gym. Just when you wake up, take a 30 minute walk, park in the back of the parking lot, get off the bus a stop early, and so on. This will speed up your weight/fat loss, AND make you feel better while losing weight.
You don't have to do any of these things, but I hope that this helps you.
Good luck! :happy: :happy: :happy:0 -
Okay i hate to exercise BUT if you don't and you lose all the weight guess what happens you get FLABBBBB yes that would be the skin that hangs down after a big weight lost if you have been overweight for many years you sking has streched to fit the fat built up inside and it will only go back so far you have gotr to exercise to get that skin back in shap i have seen my sister and her stomache looks so bad from excess skin she lost fast and did not exercise. please do some situps and cardio it will come off fast and your skin will love you!!!
0 -
I think exercise is essential.
8 years ago I lost 20 pounds with diet alone-1200 cals I looked flabby and old. Tired.
I lost 20 pounds this time with diet and exercise, including weight lifting, and I look fantabulous. When you do any type of cardio not only use your legs, you use your core.
I also FEEL better-stronger.
My back is stronger, I can see my abs peeking through, my legs and arms are losing their flabby look and even my face looks better.
Good luck!:flowerforyou:0 -
You don't need exercise to lose weight. In fact, while exercise is great for the prevention of fat gain, it's pretty pitiful at treating fat gain once it's already happened. All you need is a caloric deficit. Exercise doesn't even help prevent muscle loss or down-regulation of the metabolism.
CALORIES, however, affect it immensely. Undereat, and you're setting yourself up for a long, tough road of very slow/no weight loss and a high % of the weight loss coming from muscle.
That said, low/no carb diets always results in a huge initial weight loss, but it's not fat. It's a loss of glycogen (stored blood sugar in the liver and muscles) and water (which binds to glycogen). You can lose 10 lbs in a week from cutting carbs, but it comes back once you eat them again. It has nothing to do with fat loss or gain.
Now I have a question: How are you supposed to burn fat if, as you say, excercise is not needed? And what of all the nutrionalists saying the lean mass uses more energy and thus burns more calories at rest?
I was hoping for questions haha...I never state something I can't support, but I do like controversy. :laugh:
When we're at rest, a majority of our energy comes from utilizing fatty acids for fuel. It takes a long time to make ATP from fats, and it requires oxygen, but that's fine when we're sitting on our bottoms breathing comfortably. If we're in a caloric deficit, we still need all the calories necessary to maintain normal bodily functions, so where will they come from? The same place as always--our own adipose tissue. We don't need to exercise to be in a caloric deficit, and some people *can't* exercise, like the morbidly obese. They lose weight just like anyone else---maintaining a caloric deficit. It's just easier for them to do it with diet alone because their BMR's are extremely high, while those of us with less to lose don't have to eat as much, so we exercise to maintain a large deficit while eating enough to prevent a huge down-regulation in metabolism. It should be emphasized that it is CALORIES, not exercise, that determine how much your metabolism will slow.
Lean mass is more bioactive, that's very true. However, we can't ADD any while we're in a caloric deficit. All we can do is lose it. Unfortunately, lifting isn't enough to maintain our muscle mass; in fact, it doesn't help at all. Once again, it's CALORIES that determine how much muscle mass we'll lose. You can lose anywhere from 10-50% of your weight from muscle depending on how large your deficit is. If you want to increase your muscle mass, you have to eat about 100-200 extra calories a day and lift HARD. It can't happen on a deficit. You can't build tissues if you don't even have enough material to maintain them.
Can you gain strength? Yes, that's neurological, and doesn't require building materials. Can you feel harder? Yes, that's also neurological.
I'm not saying NOT to exercise. I'm saying that it's better eat enough and ease in to exercising. There's nothing I hate more than being guilted into exercising on a day when I am BEAT, especially knowing that it's not going to affect my weight loss either way (except having to eat a bit less on a certain day). It's more important to exercise because you *enjoy* it, not because you feel obligated. Take it from someone who's been counting, measuring, running, lifting, periodizing, etc for 3 years non-stop...you can get sick of it at times. :laugh:
Exercise is excellent preventative medicine. It can prevent a heart attack. It can prevent obesity. It can prevent metabolic diseases. But once you HAVE these things, exercise isn't nearly as effective in *treating* them.0 -
You don't need exercise to lose weight. In fact, while exercise is great for the prevention of fat gain, it's pretty pitiful at treating fat gain once it's already happened. All you need is a caloric deficit. Exercise doesn't even help prevent muscle loss or down-regulation of the metabolism.
CALORIES, however, affect it immensely. Undereat, and you're setting yourself up for a long, tough road of very slow/no weight loss and a high % of the weight loss coming from muscle.
That said, low/no carb diets always results in a huge initial weight loss, but it's not fat. It's a loss of glycogen (stored blood sugar in the liver and muscles) and water (which binds to glycogen). You can lose 10 lbs in a week from cutting carbs, but it comes back once you eat them again. It has nothing to do with fat loss or gain.
Now I have a question: How are you supposed to burn fat if, as you say, excercise is not needed? And what of all the nutrionalists saying the lean mass uses more energy and thus burns more calories at rest?
I was hoping for questions haha...I never state something I can't support, but I do like controversy. :laugh:
When we're at rest, a majority of our energy comes from utilizing fatty acids for fuel. It takes a long time to make ATP from fats, and it requires oxygen, but that's fine when we're sitting on our bottoms breathing comfortably. If we're in a caloric deficit, we still need all the calories necessary to maintain normal bodily functions, so where will they come from? The same place as always--our own adipose tissue. We don't need to exercise to be in a caloric deficit, and some people *can't* exercise, like the morbidly obese. They lose weight just like anyone else---maintaining a caloric deficit. It's just easier for them to do it with diet alone because their BMR's are extremely high, while those of us with less to lose don't have to eat as much, so we exercise to maintain a large deficit while eating enough to prevent a huge down-regulation in metabolism. It should be emphasized that it is CALORIES, not exercise, that determine how much your metabolism will slow.
Lean mass is more bioactive, that's very true. However, we can't ADD any while we're in a caloric deficit. All we can do is lose it. Unfortunately, lifting isn't enough to maintain our muscle mass; in fact, it doesn't help at all. Once again, it's CALORIES that determine how much muscle mass we'll lose. You can lose anywhere from 10-50% of your weight from muscle depending on how large your deficit is. If you want to increase your muscle mass, you have to eat about 100-200 extra calories a day and lift HARD. It can't happen on a deficit. You can't build tissues if you don't even have enough material to maintain them.
Can you gain strength? Yes, that's neurological, and doesn't require building materials. Can you feel harder? Yes, that's also neurological.
I'm not saying NOT to exercise. I'm saying that it's better eat enough and ease in to exercising. There's nothing I hate more than being guilted into exercising on a day when I am BEAT, especially knowing that it's not going to affect my weight loss either way (except having to eat a bit less on a certain day). It's more important to exercise because you *enjoy* it, not because you feel obligated. Take it from someone who's been counting, measuring, running, lifting, periodizing, etc for 3 years non-stop...you can get sick of it at times. :laugh:
Exercise is excellent preventative medicine. It can prevent a heart attack. It can prevent obesity. It can prevent metabolic diseases. But once you HAVE these things, exercise isn't nearly as effective in *treating* them.
Songbyrdsweet, normally you're my go-to guru on all of these kinds of questions so maybe I'm misunderstanding this...but I'm skeptical. Yes, you can loose weight without exercise but, in addition to building muscle, exercise burns calories. If you need to create a calorie deficit the best way is to cut your calories a little and increase your exercise a little. As for not gaining muscle when you're in a deficit...not sure I agree. I've been losing weight steadily. Now, I admit that I'm not "bulking" up like a weight lifter but I very clearly have more muscle tone and definition than I had before. So, am I missing something?0 -
...Atkins and SB both are very dangerous diets to your liver, and general functioning and are not recognized by the American Dietetic Association...
Why is South Beach a very dangerous diet? Even on Phase 1, you eat plenty of nutrient-dense, fiber-rich foods. This includes lean protein, such as fish and other seafood; skinless white-meat poultry, and lean cuts of beef (vegetarians can eat meat substitutes, tofu, and beans); high-fiber veggies; reduced-fat cheeses; eggs; low-fat dairy; and healthy, unsaturated fats, such as those found in avocados, nuts and seeds, and extra-virgin olive and canola oils. Phase 1 is only for two weeks and is mainly designed to eliminate cravings and stabilize blood sugar. The main part of the diet is Phase 2, during which you eat you'll eat everything in Phase 1 plus good carbs, such as whole-grain bread, brown rice, whole-wheat pasta, fruits, and even more veggies, like sweet potatoes, pumpkin, and peas.
So how is that dangerous??? Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but I am tired of seeing the South Beach diet getting lumped in with the Atkins diet by folks who don't really take the time to research to know what they're talking about. Even Atkins, if done properly (NOT by eating a pound of bacon a day), is not so dangerous.0 -
You don't need exercise to lose weight. In fact, while exercise is great for the prevention of fat gain, it's pretty pitiful at treating fat gain once it's already happened. All you need is a caloric deficit. Exercise doesn't even help prevent muscle loss or down-regulation of the metabolism.
CALORIES, however, affect it immensely. Undereat, and you're setting yourself up for a long, tough road of very slow/no weight loss and a high % of the weight loss coming from muscle.
That said, low/no carb diets always results in a huge initial weight loss, but it's not fat. It's a loss of glycogen (stored blood sugar in the liver and muscles) and water (which binds to glycogen). You can lose 10 lbs in a week from cutting carbs, but it comes back once you eat them again. It has nothing to do with fat loss or gain.
Now I have a question: How are you supposed to burn fat if, as you say, excercise is not needed? And what of all the nutrionalists saying the lean mass uses more energy and thus burns more calories at rest?
I was hoping for questions haha...I never state something I can't support, but I do like controversy. :laugh:
When we're at rest, a majority of our energy comes from utilizing fatty acids for fuel. It takes a long time to make ATP from fats, and it requires oxygen, but that's fine when we're sitting on our bottoms breathing comfortably. If we're in a caloric deficit, we still need all the calories necessary to maintain normal bodily functions, so where will they come from? The same place as always--our own adipose tissue. We don't need to exercise to be in a caloric deficit, and some people *can't* exercise, like the morbidly obese. They lose weight just like anyone else---maintaining a caloric deficit. It's just easier for them to do it with diet alone because their BMR's are extremely high, while those of us with less to lose don't have to eat as much, so we exercise to maintain a large deficit while eating enough to prevent a huge down-regulation in metabolism. It should be emphasized that it is CALORIES, not exercise, that determine how much your metabolism will slow.
Lean mass is more bioactive, that's very true. However, we can't ADD any while we're in a caloric deficit. All we can do is lose it. Unfortunately, lifting isn't enough to maintain our muscle mass; in fact, it doesn't help at all. Once again, it's CALORIES that determine how much muscle mass we'll lose. You can lose anywhere from 10-50% of your weight from muscle depending on how large your deficit is. If you want to increase your muscle mass, you have to eat about 100-200 extra calories a day and lift HARD. It can't happen on a deficit. You can't build tissues if you don't even have enough material to maintain them.
Can you gain strength? Yes, that's neurological, and doesn't require building materials. Can you feel harder? Yes, that's also neurological.
I'm not saying NOT to exercise. I'm saying that it's better eat enough and ease in to exercising. There's nothing I hate more than being guilted into exercising on a day when I am BEAT, especially knowing that it's not going to affect my weight loss either way (except having to eat a bit less on a certain day). It's more important to exercise because you *enjoy* it, not because you feel obligated. Take it from someone who's been counting, measuring, running, lifting, periodizing, etc for 3 years non-stop...you can get sick of it at times. :laugh:
Exercise is excellent preventative medicine. It can prevent a heart attack. It can prevent obesity. It can prevent metabolic diseases. But once you HAVE these things, exercise isn't nearly as effective in *treating* them.
Songbyrdsweet, normally you're my go-to guru on all of these kinds of questions so maybe I'm misunderstanding this...but I'm skeptical. Yes, you can loose weight without exercise but, in addition to building muscle, exercise burns calories. If you need to create a calorie deficit the best way is to cut your calories a little and increase your exercise a little. As for not gaining muscle when you're in a deficit...not sure I agree. I've been losing weight steadily. Now, I admit that I'm not "bulking" up like a weight lifter but I very clearly have more muscle tone and definition than I had before. So, am I missing something?
Well that's the thing.
On a deficit, you CAN'T build muscle. Not physiologically possible. There's just not enough ATP to do so. You can become stronger and firmer, and your muscles will become more visible due to a loss in body fat. But your muscle fibers won't get bigger/increase in size (no one really knows which happens to make muscles grow lol). I can describe that in more depth if you like (muscle phys is my favorite).
I agree that's the best way to burn calories. If your TDEE is 1600, if course it's a bad idea to eat 1100 cals a day--then we run a greater risk of metabolism slowing and increased muscle loss. But lifting weights won't prevent that, because it doesn't add muscle fibers (or specifically, mitochondrion, which are responsible for the increase in metabolism) in a caloric deficit. So once again, it's total calories, not exercise, that determine our body comp. throughout the dieting.
That said, if you said "I don't want to perform exercise every day. I want to do it 3 times a week for 30 minutes just for CV health. I'm going to eat 1400 calories a day and have a 200 calorie deficit," you'd still lose weight and maintain most of your muscle mass. It would just take a long time. Some people have the patience to do so.0 -
Thanks songbyrd, that make more sense to me. I don't think I could have lost any weight without exercise because I just like food too much. I can't cut what I eat by enough without exercise to create a calorie deficit. What I'm seeing with muscle is probably tone not an increase in size (which is way ok with me).
You remain my guru:happy:0 -
Thanks songbyrd, that make more sense to me. I don't think I could have lost any weight without exercise because I just like food too much. I can't cut what I eat by enough without exercise to create a calorie deficit. What I'm seeing with muscle is probably tone not an increase in size (which is way ok with me).
You remain my guru:happy:
Oh I'm the same way...I am small, and I don't need many calories to maintain my weight. I am also impatient, so I want a full 500 cal. deficit. :laugh: But if I'm at work for like 9 hours, and I'm on my feet all day, I have burnt enough calories from standing/walking so that I don't bother with trying to fit a workout in. It's just stressful and makes my otherwise beloved lifting feel like a chore. I think it's important for people to enjoy their exercise rather than feeling like they have to do it or they won't get anywhere.
I have seen huge changes in my definition. I have been through cutting/bulking phases, but most people who cycle agree that they tend to 'look bigger' when they're lean because their muscles are more defined, even though they will sometimes have to give up several lbs of muscle mass to get taht lean.
I'm glad I didn't lose you to my unorthodox (and somewhat discouraging) principles LOL :flowerforyou:0 -
I apologize. Phase 1 is unhealthy, but phases 2 and 3 are good. If you want to know where I get my facts, look here:
http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/South_Beach.pdf
I'm a dietetics student, so I research this quite thoroughly.
Atkins, is, and no matter what random sources anyone finds, unhealthy. A diet rich in saturated fats and low in complex carbohydrates is not a healthy weight loss plan. It not only in unhealthy, it is unsustainable.
My aunt did Atkins for about 6 months, lost about 60 pounds, and all was well. And then she found she could not continue to do Atkins, and has not only gained back the weight, but has gained it back plus 20 pounds.
Anyone can do any diet they want (obviously), but a lot of the point of losing weight is to get healthy, so why not get healthy in a healthy way?
Here is the ADA's view on Atkins.
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/media_3055_ENU_HTML.htm
http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/
Sorry if I stepped on any toes, but I meant only the very restrictive part of the SB diet. The second and third phases are more similar to diets such as the "eat clean" diet and the USDA's food pyramid.0 -
I don't really see the danger in a ketogenic diet in a non-diabetic. They've traditionally been used in juveniles with epilepsy as they can reduce the frequency of seizures. Normal individuals bodies' contain pH buffers that regulate ketone levels in the absence of dietary carbohydrates, and the body will produce its own glucose from some amino acids and glycerol. Granted, anaerobic activity in a glycogen-depleted stated relies on a really inefficient energy system, but other than that, things run like normal. The brain gets the glucose it needs, and actually will use more ketones than glucose unless body fat drops to dangerously low levels. Saturated fats aren't inherently evil either, and while they shouldn't comprise a majority of your calories, they are necessary for cell function and hormone production. Besides, no one says you *have* to stuff your face with bacon on Atkins. That's just human error.
The huge weight loss/gain we see in the beginning/ending stages of low/no-carb diets are due to glycogen replenishment and the water it binds to, barring overeating. But if you're overeating...it doesn't matter how you were eating previously, you're going to gain weight.
I do have to say, the ADA and I don't see totally eye-to-eye because I tend to think the USDA pyramid needs some masonry work. :laugh:0 -
I apologize. Phase 1 is unhealthy, but phases 2 and 3 are good. If you want to know where I get my facts, look here:
http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/South_Beach.pdf
I'm a dietetics student, so I research this quite thoroughly.
Atkins, is, and no matter what random sources anyone finds, unhealthy. A diet rich in saturated fats and low in complex carbohydrates is not a healthy weight loss plan. It not only in unhealthy, it is unsustainable.
My aunt did Atkins for about 6 months, lost about 60 pounds, and all was well. And then she found she could not continue to do Atkins, and has not only gained back the weight, but has gained it back plus 20 pounds.
Anyone can do any diet they want (obviously), but a lot of the point of losing weight is to get healthy, so why not get healthy in a healthy way?
Here is the ADA's view on Atkins.
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/media_3055_ENU_HTML.htm
http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/
Sorry if I stepped on any toes, but I meant only the very restrictive part of the SB diet. The second and third phases are more similar to diets such as the "eat clean" diet and the USDA's food pyramid.
That's why I want to know specifics about a certain diet, I read the book itself. The Internet is full of misinformation.
No, Atkins done properly is not unhealthy. When most people think of Atkins they think of GOBS of cheese, fatty bacon and butter. That is a big misconception. When I did Atkins, I focused mainly on good fats. Yes, I did eat bacon occasionally and I also ate chicken with the skin on, but I also ate lots of leafy green/non-starchy vegetables, low sugar fruits and even some whole grain foods. Most people don't think of that when they think of the Atkins diet. When I say Atkins done properly, this is what I mean: http://www.atkins.com/food-pyramid.html. That is the way I did it...the correct way. What's so unhealthy about that?
Sorry but what happened to your aunt will happen on ANY diet if you go off of it. That doesn't just happen only on Atkins.0 -
I don't really see the danger in a ketogenic diet in a non-diabetic. They've traditionally been used in juveniles with epilepsy as they can reduce the frequency of seizures. Normal individuals bodies' contain pH buffers that regulate ketone levels in the absence of dietary carbohydrates, and the body will produce its own glucose from some amino acids and glycerol. Granted, anaerobic activity in a glycogen-depleted stated relies on a really inefficient energy system, but other than that, things run like normal. The brain gets the glucose it needs, and actually will use more ketones than glucose unless body fat drops to dangerously low levels. Saturated fats aren't inherently evil either, and while they shouldn't comprise a majority of your calories, they are necessary for cell function and hormone production. Besides, no one says you *have* to stuff your face with bacon on Atkins. That's just human error.
The huge weight loss/gain we see in the beginning/ending stages of low/no-carb diets are due to glycogen replenishment and the water it binds to, barring overeating. But if you're overeating...it doesn't matter how you were eating previously, you're going to gain weight.
I do have to say, the ADA and I don't see totally eye-to-eye because I tend to think the USDA pyramid needs some masonry work. :laugh:
Very well said!0 -
I think exercise is essential.
8 years ago I lost 20 pounds with diet alone-1200 cals I looked flabby and old. Tired.
I lost 20 pounds this time with diet and exercise, including weight lifting, and I look fantabulous. When you do any type of cardio not only use your legs, you use your core.
I also FEEL better-stronger.
My back is stronger, I can see my abs peeking through, my legs and arms are losing their flabby look and even my face looks better.
Good luck!:flowerforyou:
Oh that is so awesome that you changed things up...not that you merely changed things up but that you realized it was a healthier way to do it. I think folks that lose to fast in unhealthy ways look much older and tired when they've lost alot. But losing slower with healthy foods, and proper excercise, I see them looking much younger....you can see folks look 10-20 years younger just by what they eat, how they move their body and such!! :flowerforyou:
****************************************
OMG...I know I may be in the minority here but I simply LOVE TO WORKOUT and feel that sweat dripping down my body during the hard workouts actually feels great, empowering....it's so healthy for your body in SO many ways. Sweat is clearing out impurities from your body...exercise is excellent for you mentally, physically, emotionally....omg....way to many more to mention.
I get alot of social interaction when working out at the gym, I get excited at how my body is changing, I feel stronger emotionally, big boost in my self esteem!!
I began to excercise and if I hadn't I really don't know that I would have had the weightloss I've had up to this point.
My experience.:happy: ...:drinker:
It makes me puzzled and rather sad for a person grumbling as they walk in my gym and say how much they hate hate hate coming to the gym and working out, then there are those who say they don't mind working out for a little bit as long as they don't sweat.:huh: :noway:
Um, why I say it makes me sad is....I can't possibly imagine hating the gym, excercise and then being able to even stay motivated if you walk in saying you hate it. :laugh:
Some of these folks seem to have hated it the whole year I've been there and they have been there far logner. I have a very positive mind set...my goal is to be healtheir, whatever it takes, no matter how long, no matter how much mental sweat, physical sweat....well you get the idea.:drinker:
For those of you that 'hate it' or find it very difficult to want to go workout...how do you stay motivated? I'm NOT picking on anyone...please belive me...I am just curious and feel so lucky that I am someone that doesn't do that battle, I'm sure I have my own though in other ways. lol
Please don't feel I'm putting anyone down if anyone of you has mentioned hating to excercise...I'm merely saying how much I LOVE to move my body and the more I move it the easier it is each time. A year ago in July, my life changed forever something just plain ClICKED for me...it's never been the same.:happy:
I fought the fear, bought a suit and began taking water aerobics, soon began upstairs doing weights, adding more classes such as Yoga, Zumba, Pliates.....I take everything I can possibly fit in during my time there.
I am now again taking Qi Gong in the water with another woman, there used to be a class but the Yoga instructor that taught it had to move due to family illnesses. Jane invited me to continue the class with her...and WOW, if you ever get a chance to try it out... By all means....talk about Deeply moving and relaxing your body, mind and spirit.
Ok, my posts do get long and sorry if that bugs you but I'm pretty passionate about this site and sharing what's worked for me in losing over 100lbs. and learning from others what's working for them..because quite frankly somedays I wake up like it's all been a dream regarding my life changing:laugh: .
Thanks for reading this far...:laugh: :noway: :drinker: :flowerforyou:0 -
Once I quit 'dieting' (frankly that word annoys me becasue so many use it as a temorary fix...not a lifestyle change) I began to lose weight, have a strong desire to excercise and finally had hope at becoming healthy:drinker: :flowerforyou:0
-
Thanks songbyrd, that make more sense to me. I don't think I could have lost any weight without exercise because I just like food too much. I can't cut what I eat by enough without exercise to create a calorie deficit. What I'm seeing with muscle is probably tone not an increase in size (which is way ok with me).
You remain my guru:happy:
Oh I'm the same way...I am small, and I don't need many calories to maintain my weight. I am also impatient, so I want a full 500 cal. deficit. :laugh: But if I'm at work for like 9 hours, and I'm on my feet all day, I have burnt enough calories from standing/walking so that I don't bother with trying to fit a workout in. It's just stressful and makes my otherwise beloved lifting feel like a chore. I think it's important for people to enjoy their exercise rather than feeling like they have to do it or they won't get anywhere.
I have seen huge changes in my definition. I have been through cutting/bulking phases, but most people who cycle agree that they tend to 'look bigger' when they're lean because their muscles are more defined, even though they will sometimes have to give up several lbs of muscle mass to get taht lean.
I'm glad I didn't lose you to my unorthodox (and somewhat discouraging) principles LOL :flowerforyou:
:flowerforyou:
Ok, I think I understand what you're saying now. It just seemed as though you were saying that excercise is not important and to just watch what you eat. Which I think everyone has done to a certain extent before (me included) and look where it got us.......
:drinker:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions