Why does Atkins work?

http://weightology.net/?p=265 For the good cals, bad cals folks.

Can anyone on Atkins tell me if there is anything regarding refeeds or anaerobic performance? (serious question)

also depleting glycogen makes you lose "fakeweight" otherwise known as waterweight.

Yeah, and I've lost 37 lbs of "fakeweight"...

Doesn't seem that people understand how the Atkins diet really works. The assumption that you eat low or not carbs is only true for phase 1. Once you reach your goal weight, you slowly introduce carbs into your diet at 5 grams a day per week until you find the point at which you gain weight to determine how many carbs your body can handle. Some people can go as high as 120grams of carbs per day.

The calories in < calories out is a really really REALLY simplified method of describing how your body loses (or gains) weight. The reality is, not all your food gets fully digested and used by your body in most cases. This is why so many raw vegans and such can eat a MASSIVE amount of calories and not gain (and sometimes lose) weight. Its because the food is harder for the body to digest and quite often only a fraction of the amount is actually usable.

The same is true for the Atkins diet. The body does not effectively use fats and proteins to power the body. Your body runs on glycogen, or sugar. Protein, if I'm not mistaken, cannot be turned into sugar. Fats, on the other hand, can be, with much difficulty, turned into an energy source similar to sugar to be used by the body, but it is inefficient and puts you in a state of ketosis where sugar is completely depleted and they are going after the only thing that CAN be turned into energy, which is fat. This also includes body fat, not just the fat you are eating.

Fat and oils, however, can often slip and slide through our system fairly quickly, meaning that many of those fat calories, since they are eaten in such large volumes, cannot possibly be handled by the digestive system in our bodies. The result is that much of the fat gets flushed out. In the end, the total calories that the body ACTUALLY got is much less than what was eaten. This, as you can see, creates the calorie deficit.

The metabolic system of the body is far more than the simplified calories in and calories out paradigm, but that way of thinking is good for a lot of cases. Just not all. No laws of thermogenesis are being broken here, its just that the body gets rid of what it can't use at the moment (digestive wise).

I've been eating a high carbohydrate diet for a long time and am still losing weight, running and cycling longer and faster, consistently high energy levels, no complaints or issues. For example, yesterday I ate over 700 grams of carbohydrates - no biggie. Carbs aren't the enemy here, and people need to get that through their thick skulls. It is so idiotic to think that in the paleolithic era we ate boatloads of meat and fats, salty bacon and fried eggs, etc. The fact of the matter is that we were much like our primate cousins who eat a highly plant-based diet FULL of carbohydrates and sugars. SUGAR. Not the refined crap in foods nowadays, but natural sugars coming from fruits, berries, vegetables, leafy greens, root vegetables, etc. Nuts were not even a major go-to food for us as they took too long to crack open the shells to get at the "meat" of the nut. Very rarely do primates (and I'm still using them as a parallel to how we most likely lived long ago) eat meat or high-fat, high-protein foods, but they do in some cases/when it is available.

Basically, Atkins is barking up the wrong tree for what is truly healthy for us as humans. Sounds like most people in the "maintenance" stage of Atkins are more along a Paleo line of nutrition than anything else, but the early stages, or weight loss stages, are downright nasty and dangerous. Treat your body right and it will treat you right.

We started off so well.

Anyway, one of the latest shared by SS

http://impruvism.com/why-calories-count/

It's long, but it should answer all of your questions (including your science search difficulties).



In addition, the 'science' in Fat Head was cringe worthy, and as for Gary Taubes.... no. Just no.

Dr. Neil Barnard's Program for Reversing Diabetes
Food Revolution by John Robbins
Watch any lecture by Dean Ornish, M.D.

Excessive meat consumption triples your risk of certain types of cancers: mainly: breast, prostate and colon.

World class athletes are learning that vegan or vegetarian diets are giving them a performance edge in their sports.

Vegan and vegetarian diets are generally better at reducing insulin resistance (increasing insulin sensitivity).

The more vegetables you eat, the less of the bad stuff you eat.

Eating a meat heavy diet is quite probably bad for your kidneys, your vascular system, and your heart. The Western diet, high in meat consumption, tracks with heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

There are plenty of medical doctors that now advocate a vegetarian or vegan diet. Note, the first U.S. government panel tasked with creating the first food pyramid was going to advise Americans to eat "little to no meat products." The cattle association got an advanced copy of their report and collectively freaked the F out. They lobbied the government to rework their findings not include this suggestion in the final report. The entire history of this was published in the New York Times. It was about 15 pages worth of article. I didn't look extensively for it, but if you look for an NY Times article that talks about the food pyramid task force in the 70's, you're getting warmer.

Atkins is good at burning glycogen storage in your liver in the first weeks. This is the "easy" weight to lose. Weightloss slows way down after that. My brother has been on again off again Atkins and has
1) never been ever to stick to it for the longterm
2) never loses much after the first few weeks
3) belittles and condescends me constantly for being a vegetarian. I have lost 110 pounds since starting WW. For at least 5 years I have been a vegetarian, and I get to eat very large volumes of vegetables and thus can trigger the "full" sensation because eating sessions have to do with food volumes as much as anything else.

These are just my points. Google the things I've mentioned, consider reading the books I've mentioned, or watch Dean Ornish's lectures on YouTube.

I will not get mired in a debate over my facts. If you don't agree, feel free to post responses. But replying for me would just be redundant. I have heavily researched these issues. Atkins may work for some, but they are going to damage their kidneys in the long term because Ketosis is not a positive condition. It is the body's homeostasis run amok. Homeostasis is the measure of the body's internal functions working harmoniously and in alignment. Ketosis is not a positive internal body chemistry. At least research the critics of Atkins for their views on Ketosis. You are playing with your body chemistry in the worst way when you starve yourself of all carbs. I eat 200 or more carbs a day and I lose weight EASILY when I stick to program.

edit: I don't mean to sound hostile in that final paragraph. Debates over the Atkins diet on MFP boards are constant. People on both sides have very strong opinions about it. I usually stay out of it. People usually don't change their minds when they feel so strongly about it. I'm fine with anyone not agreeing with what I said in this post. But I'm prophylactically stating that I have said what I have to say, and if you don't agree, there is really nothing more I have to say against the Atkins diet.

I know I said I wasn't going to weigh-in after my original post. But not one defender of Atkins has said a single thing about any of the information in my

Actually, you don't need carbs and fat to build protein, you need amino acids, which come from protein.

Low carb works for some people, and if used in the short term very low carb diets coupled with adequate protein do allow them to lose fat while retaining muscle mass. When the body is in starvation mode it breaks down protein into amino acids to generate the minimal amount of glucose it needs for survival (very small amount--the rest of the body can burn fat). So if there is adequate protein/amino acids available via diet such as small frequent meals that contain high protein levels, the body doesn't need to break down lean body mass (protein) into amino acids.

Long term inadequate intake of carbohydrates can cause problems because of the vital nutrients that accompany those carbohydrates can be missing. However, the body actually doesn't have a minimal amount of required carbohydrates per day in order to survive, unless you want to count 0 as a number. Also it is much healthier for our colon to have fiber. Healthy kidneys and livers handle low carb just fine, but some people have suggested that the higher acid produced by the metabolism can lead to bone loss (again, need long term studies to tell if short term low carb effects bone density in the years to come).

More studies are needed to tell if a 6 month to 12 month period of low carb diet is more hazardous to the health than an extra 50-100 lbs.

Some people eat normal or high carb (typical american diet) and still eat like crap, and take in little to no nutrients or fiber. Those who are obese as well, coupled with diabetes, heart disease, htn....will a low carb diet in the short term really cause more of a health issue, if they can eat a "normal" diet once they have reached goal weight?

I don't know, but think short term very low carb is less dangerous if the weight can be kept off, at least compared to doing nothing.


And for the person who thinks low carb causes more foul flatulence---from personal experience I was much more gassy (embarrasingly so) on Jenny Craig than the low carb diet. On low carb diet gas production was tiny, almost zero. At least until I started to add in more fruits and veggies. Don't know if everybody experiences that but unfortunately I did.

also depleting glycogen makes you lose "fakeweight" otherwise known as waterweight.

also depleting glycogen makes you lose "fakeweight" otherwise known as waterweight.

Wow!! You mean I had 81 pounds of water weight!?!? No wonder I was always needing to pee!!

I don't want to enter into any debate about this one.... but the movie FatHead probably gives a better description of low to moderate carb theories than most things I have seen. You can watch it free on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evcNPfZlrZs

The gist of it is lowering your blood glucose by consuming less sugars/starches, and thus your insulin response....which in turn should lower the fat storage.

Folks will debate till blue in the face over it all.

Personally, I can only say moderate to lower carb has helped me control blood sugars and drop pounds better than calorie control alone. But I also agree, the overall calorie number is important too. I don't think too low is good, nor do I think an unlimited amount of calories is fine even if it is low carb.

I think different bodies have slightly different needs. Overall, it is worth paying attention to BOTH calories and carbs in my opinion. I hope the link helps.

Fathead's main takeaway is eating at a deficit causes weight loss, most of the other stuff in the movie was nonsense