Can a partial vegetarian have success with Atkins

_Zardoz_ · October 2013

You don't need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight.

I'm afraid Science disagree with you

SurfyFriend · October 2013

Define success.

lauren3101 · October 2013

Hang on, hang on, just so I've got this right...

You're mostly vegetarian, and you want to try a diet that is mostly meat?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

_Zardoz_ · October 2013

Is a partial vegetarian like being slightly pregnant?

EvgeniZyntx · October 2013

Can you please blog about your experience. I'm always curious about the the human condition.

I'd like to understand why you are attempting two restrictive diets at the same time.

Atkins is a high protein low carb diet ( and CAN be done while being a vegetarian) but its going to be rough. No starchy legumes.And 150+ grams per meal of protein from ... well, eggs and fish if you are dropping meat. How about cheese?
It's going to be very very bland likely and require a lot of planning.

And one might risk nutritional issues if by restriction you are only eating a few things. So plan carefully.

But if your goals is weight loss - you don't need Atkins. If you want to try it - why not. Why not eat whatever you like in reasonable quantities and still lose weight?

Miss_Meliss86 · October 2013

You don't need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. Just eating the right foods so your body can burn fat instead of store it. Whether it be "doing" Atkins or another "healthy" eating plan. Either way, sugars and processed grains are not good for anyone.

I'm sorry, what? Care to explain what exactly you mean by "You don't need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight"? You may want to check your science again...this is the very basis of MFP!

So why are you doing Atkins exactly? Eat at a deficit, watch your macros (Fat, Protein, Carbs), exercise, and you'll lose weight.

I'm vegetarian and gluten free, have never tried Atkins (and never will), and am within 2lb of my "goal" weight following the above guidelines.

Can I ask what your macros are?

My macros are currently set at: 45% carbs, 25% fat, and 35% protein. It's worked for me so far, but I've had to make adjustments. You have to do what's right for you, but trying to restrict yourself to the extreme that Atkins does is just asking for trouble.

Also not entirely sure what you mean by "partial vegetarian"? Is it like vegetarian with cheat days? Everyone chooses vegetarian for different reasons, but that kind of defeats the purpose does it not?

Ophidion · October 2013

Can you please blog about your experience. I'm always curious about the the human condition.

I'd like to understand why you are attempting two restrictive diets at the same time.

Atkins is a high protein low carb diet ( and CAN be done while being a vegetarian) but its going to be rough. No starchy legumes.And 150+ grams per meal of protein from ... well, eggs and fish if you are dropping meat. How about cheese?
It's going to be very very bland likely and require a lot of planning.

And one might risk nutritional issues if by restriction you are only eating a few things. So plan carefully.

But if your goals is weight loss - you don't need Atkins. If you want to try it - why not. Why not eat whatever you like in reasonable quantities and still lose weight?

+1
The results and your ability for adherence would prove most interesting.

That being said I think you are over-complicating it when there are much simpler methods.

kiramaniac · October 2013

Atkins is pretty similar to keto. You might wat to check out the vegetarian keto subreddit over at reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/vegetarianketo/

bacitracin · October 2013

Adkins isn't healthy anyway.

Uhm, got any proof low-carb is unhealthy?

Never said low carb was not healthy pal

Adkins isn't healthy anyway.

bacitracin · October 2013

After several months my cholesterol went thru the roof. Once I cut back (not eliminated) on my red meat, butter, heavy cream and whole egg (I eat a whole egg and egg whites now) consumption it went back to normal.

Huh. I ate only red meat, cheese, eggs, and almonds for 7 months and my cholesterol was *too low*. I had to supplement with more butter and fish oil to get my cholesterol up to a normal level.

keem88 · October 2013

no one can have success with atkins or any of those fad diets. the weight comes back when the foods that are eliminated are re introduced. unless you plan on eating that diet forever. which still wouldn't work because humans are not made to eliminate essential things such as carbs or fats.

butterfli7o · October 2013

Oh man. This would be a nightmare for me. The combination of vegetarian + Atkins sounds almost impossble and horribly restrictive.

keem88 · October 2013

unless you wanna give it a shot and see if it works for you but that seems like a silly thing to do

DeltaZero · October 2013

I'm a partial vegetarian.

I'm partial to eat anything that eats vegetarian.

keem88 · October 2013

Hi, I am currently transitioning to vegetarian. I do not eat meat at home, however if I go out I will eat seafood and sometimes chicken. I have been looking at the Atkins diet and wondering if it is something I can try. I eat things like veggie burgers and other Morning Star and Boca products regularly. Are these considered carbohydrates? Would I have to go back to eating meat? Which is not something that I would like to do.

Any info would be appreciated. Thanks

morning star and boca products are not healthy foods to eat, you're better off making your own vegatized protein with vital wheat gluten and water, and cooking it in veg broth. have you ever read the ingredients on those products? quorn makes better products, at least they only have like 7 ingredients and are soy free in theirs instead of 20 lines. it sounds like you need to do a lot of research before you transition into vegetarianism, because you are going down an unhealthy path set up for failure if you think eating that crap plus doing atkins is actually going to work. it sounds very restrictive for food intake and not anything that will have long term positive results.

keem88 · October 2013

and please do not use the term vegetarian since you still eat meat. i hate when people say they are partial or somewhat vegetarian. no you are not any type of vegetarian, so stop trying to be. just eat food and exercise, sheesh.

jaycbrf4 · October 2013

Atkins is based on reducing carbs to burn fat. Has nothing to do with calories. A calorie is a unit of heat used to indicate the amount of energy that foods will produce in the human body.

Everyone with an OPINION is mentioning science but not listing any. Atkins is proven to work. I use MFP just to log foods. I ignore the calories, they mean nothing to me. Just the carbs, fats, and protein.

Sorry if you do not understand, but do not say I am wrong if you do not know any better -

Wildflower0106 · October 2013

Op: sorry but you are not vegetarian, partial vegetarian or even pescatarian...

cwolfman13 · October 2013

You don't need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight

Atkins is based on reducing carbs to burn fat. Has nothing to do with calories. A calorie is a unit of heat used to indicate the amount of energy that foods will produce in the human body.

Everyone with an OPINION is mentioning science but not listing any. Atkins is proven to work. I use MFP just to log foods. I ignore the calories, they mean nothing to me. Just the carbs, fats, and protein.

Sorry if you do not understand, but do not say I am wrong if you do not know any better -

Laws of thermodynamics would suggest that you cannot be catabolic with a surplus of energy...

Also, by eliminating an entire macro-nutrient most will inherently create a calorie deficit necessary for weight loss as per the laws of thermodynamics. I'm sorry that you don't understand science. I've easily lost 40 Lbs and I eat all the carbs. I have no issue with someone low carbing or whatever...that is their choice...ultimately it is unsustainable for most to exclude and entire macro-nutrient for all of eternity, but more power to you if you can. But saying that you don't have to have a deficit of energy to lose weight just flies in the face of science and is absolutely ridiculous.

_Zardoz_ · October 2013

Atkins is based on reducing carbs to burn fat. Has nothing to do with calories. A calorie is a unit of heat used to indicate the amount of energy that foods will produce in the human body.

Everyone with an OPINION is mentioning science but not listing any. Atkins is proven to work. I use MFP just to log foods. I ignore the calories, they mean nothing to me. Just the carbs, fats, and protein.

Sorry if you do not understand, but do not say I am wrong if you do not know any better -

it goes the other way I'm afraid the thing is your not quoting any science either. The only way around actually works is if your rating Atkins at a calorie deficit. Just because your not counting the calories does not mean your not eating at a deficit. Going on your theory I can eat 10000 calories of Atkins foods a day and still lose weight. That's just plain silly and if you don't see that more fool you. I can say your wrong because secondary school science says your wrong as do all major health organisms around the world.

randomtai · October 2013

You don't need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. Just eating the right foods so your body can burn fat instead of store it. Whether it be "doing" Atkins or another "healthy" eating plan. Either way, sugars and processed grains are not good for anyone.

Vivian06703188 · October 2013

You don't need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight

Atkins is based on reducing carbs to burn fat. Has nothing to do with calories. A calorie is a unit of heat used to indicate the amount of energy that foods will produce in the human body.

Everyone with an OPINION is mentioning science but not listing any. Atkins is proven to work. I use MFP just to log foods. I ignore the calories, they mean nothing to me. Just the carbs, fats, and protein.

Sorry if you do not understand, but do not say I am wrong if you do not know any better -

Laws of thermodynamics...

Also, by eliminating an entire macro-nutrient most will inherently create a calorie deficit necessary for weight loss as per the laws of thermodynamics. I'm sorry that you don't understand science. I've easily lost 40 Lbs and I eat all the carbs. I have no issue with someone low carbing or whatever...that is their choice...ultimately it is unsustainable for most to exclude and entire macro-nutrient for all of eternity, but more power to you if you can. But saying that you don't have to have a deficit of energy to lose weight just flies in the face of science and is absolutely ridiculous.

First I am not knocking anything you have said but being a man you can burn all the carbs you consume without a problem. It is proven that as women age it is harder for our bodies to metabolize carbs. That being said carbs are totally doable in moderation. It really depends on the woman and how her body processes them. It changes as you get older.

cwolfman13 · October 2013

You don't need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight

Atkins is based on reducing carbs to burn fat. Has nothing to do with calories. A calorie is a unit of heat used to indicate the amount of energy that foods will produce in the human body.

Everyone with an OPINION is mentioning science but not listing any. Atkins is proven to work. I use MFP just to log foods. I ignore the calories, they mean nothing to me. Just the carbs, fats, and protein.

Sorry if you do not understand, but do not say I am wrong if you do not know any better -

Laws of thermodynamics...

Also, by eliminating an entire macro-nutrient most will inherently create a calorie deficit necessary for weight loss as per the laws of thermodynamics. I'm sorry that you don't understand science. I've easily lost 40 Lbs and I eat all the carbs. I have no issue with someone low carbing or whatever...that is their choice...ultimately it is unsustainable for most to exclude and entire macro-nutrient for all of eternity, but more power to you if you can. But saying that you don't have to have a deficit of energy to lose weight just flies in the face of science and is absolutely ridiculous.

First I am not knocking anything you have said but being a man you can burn all the carbs you consume without a problem. It is proven that as women age it is harder for our bodies to metabolize carbs. That being said carbs are totally doable in moderation. It really depends on the woman and how her body processes them. It changes as you get older.

Your ability to process carbs has more to do with activity than it does whether you are a woman or a man or whatever. I eat carbs to a level as to properly fuel my training...I'm going into a 20 week training regimen for a 26.2 mile desert hike with weighted pack in the spring. I will be needing more carbs than usual to accomplish this...I will need more carbs in the 24 - 48 hours leading up to my long training hikes; somehow I think I'd pretty much be flat on my *kitten* with 50 grams of carbs on an 8-10 hour training hike with about 4,000 feet of elevation gain.

My mom is 60 and is a triathlete...you can bet your *kitten* she doesn't "low carb" and would die trying to do what she does on a diet like Adkins. She has pasta out the wazoo when she's training and is 16% BF...again, 60 y.o. female (BTW, she used to be obese when I was growing up)

I would agree that a sedentary individual can benefit from a lower carb intake, but it is generally not necessary for anyone who is remotely active. Even when I'm just in a maintenance workout mode...just a lot of walking, some maintenance miles on the bike and lifting, my carb intake is somewhere between 200 - 300 grams per day which is only about 40% of my diet...it bumps up to 50 - 60% when I'm actually training for something.

One should strive to have a macro-nutrient ratio that provides for optimal performance for whatever it is that they are doing...and a lot of people are doing nothing so should probably keep their carb intake under control...but still, weight control is all about energy. Now, if you're worried about water weight and the like, then for sure...you'd have to low carb...carbs hold a lot of water...I personally give a rats *kitten* about water...I need that water to help heal my body. I only care about actual fat.

Vivian06703188 · October 2013

You don't need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight

Atkins is based on reducing carbs to burn fat. Has nothing to do with calories. A calorie is a unit of heat used to indicate the amount of energy that foods will produce in the human body.

Everyone with an OPINION is mentioning science but not listing any. Atkins is proven to work. I use MFP just to log foods. I ignore the calories, they mean nothing to me. Just the carbs, fats, and protein.

Sorry if you do not understand, but do not say I am wrong if you do not know any better -

Laws of thermodynamics...

Also, by eliminating an entire macro-nutrient most will inherently create a calorie deficit necessary for weight loss as per the laws of thermodynamics. I'm sorry that you don't understand science. I've easily lost 40 Lbs and I eat all the carbs. I have no issue with someone low carbing or whatever...that is their choice...ultimately it is unsustainable for most to exclude and entire macro-nutrient for all of eternity, but more power to you if you can. But saying that you don't have to have a deficit of energy to lose weight just flies in the face of science and is absolutely ridiculous.

First I am not knocking anything you have said but being a man you can burn all the carbs you consume without a problem. It is proven that as women age it is harder for our bodies to metabolize carbs. That being said carbs are totally doable in moderation. It really depends on the woman and how her body processes them. It changes as you get older.

Your ability to process carbs has more to do with activity than it does whether you are a woman or a man or whatever. I eat carbs to a level as to properly fuel my training...I'm going into a 20 week training regimen for a 26.2 mile desert hike with weighted pack in the spring. I will be needing more carbs than usual to accomplish this...I will need more carbs in the 24 - 48 hours leading up to my long training hikes; somehow I think I'd pretty much be flat on my *kitten* with 50 grams of carbs on an 8-10 hour training hike with about 4,000 feet of elevation gain.

My mom is 60 and is a triathlete...you can bet your *kitten* she doesn't "low carb" and would die trying to do what she does on a diet like Adkins. She has pasta out the wazoo when she's training and is 16% BF...again, 60 y.o. female (BTW, she used to be obese when I was growing up)

I would agree that a sedentary individual can benefit from a lower carb intake, but it is generally not necessary for anyone who is remotely active. Even when I'm just in a maintenance workout mode...just a lot of walking, some maintenance miles on the bike and lifting, my carb intake is somewhere between 200 - 300 grams per day which is only about 40% of my diet...it bumps up to 50 - 60% when I'm actually training for something.

One should strive to have a macro-nutrient ratio that provides for optimal performance for whatever it is that they are doing...and a lot of people are doing nothing so should probably keep their carb intake under control...but still, weight control is all about energy. Now, if you're worried about water weight and the like, then for sure...you'd have to low carb...carbs hold a lot of water...I personally give a rats *kitten* about water...I need that water to help heal my body. I only care about actual fat.

I was only talking about a carb intolerance which most women experience to difference degrees as they age. As far as the Atkins diet goes I don't think it is a good idea because people tend to lose water weight in the beginning and stop getting any results because they eat too much. Extremely active people need to carb load just to maintain their weight but lets face it that is not the majority of people on MFP. You have to waste your time on all the fad diets before you settle down and realize that the only long term way to lose weight and maintain it is healthy eating of whole foods. That including breads and grains. You mother is the exception to the rule as are athletes, they do not have the fat on their bodies to burn during a run so need the carbs. I am talking about the women trying to lose weigh on this site.

cfinley28 · October 2013

Is it doable? Probably. Is it very restrictive? Yes. Is your goal just to lose weight or to lose weight AND be healthy? If the latter, focus on good nutrition verses dogma. A key to weed out what is good and what is probably just dogma is watching out for those who single out any 1 cause of weight/fat gain.

Focusing on the right calorie range, unprocessed plants, and the right amount of good protein and good fats. It's all about eating the right amount of REAL foods. A basic nutrition book and educated/experienced mentors/coaches will serve you very well.

cwolfman13 · October 2013

You don't need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight

Atkins is based on reducing carbs to burn fat. Has nothing to do with calories. A calorie is a unit of heat used to indicate the amount of energy that foods will produce in the human body.

Everyone with an OPINION is mentioning science but not listing any. Atkins is proven to work. I use MFP just to log foods. I ignore the calories, they mean nothing to me. Just the carbs, fats, and protein.

Sorry if you do not understand, but do not say I am wrong if you do not know any better -

Laws of thermodynamics...

Also, by eliminating an entire macro-nutrient most will inherently create a calorie deficit necessary for weight loss as per the laws of thermodynamics. I'm sorry that you don't understand science. I've easily lost 40 Lbs and I eat all the carbs. I have no issue with someone low carbing or whatever...that is their choice...ultimately it is unsustainable for most to exclude and entire macro-nutrient for all of eternity, but more power to you if you can. But saying that you don't have to have a deficit of energy to lose weight just flies in the face of science and is absolutely ridiculous.

First I am not knocking anything you have said but being a man you can burn all the carbs you consume without a problem. It is proven that as women age it is harder for our bodies to metabolize carbs. That being said carbs are totally doable in moderation. It really depends on the woman and how her body processes them. It changes as you get older.

Your ability to process carbs has more to do with activity than it does whether you are a woman or a man or whatever. I eat carbs to a level as to properly fuel my training...I'm going into a 20 week training regimen for a 26.2 mile desert hike with weighted pack in the spring. I will be needing more carbs than usual to accomplish this...I will need more carbs in the 24 - 48 hours leading up to my long training hikes; somehow I think I'd pretty much be flat on my *kitten* with 50 grams of carbs on an 8-10 hour training hike with about 4,000 feet of elevation gain.

My mom is 60 and is a triathlete...you can bet your *kitten* she doesn't "low carb" and would die trying to do what she does on a diet like Adkins. She has pasta out the wazoo when she's training and is 16% BF...again, 60 y.o. female (BTW, she used to be obese when I was growing up)

I would agree that a sedentary individual can benefit from a lower carb intake, but it is generally not necessary for anyone who is remotely active. Even when I'm just in a maintenance workout mode...just a lot of walking, some maintenance miles on the bike and lifting, my carb intake is somewhere between 200 - 300 grams per day which is only about 40% of my diet...it bumps up to 50 - 60% when I'm actually training for something.

One should strive to have a macro-nutrient ratio that provides for optimal performance for whatever it is that they are doing...and a lot of people are doing nothing so should probably keep their carb intake under control...but still, weight control is all about energy. Now, if you're worried about water weight and the like, then for sure...you'd have to low carb...carbs hold a lot of water...I personally give a rats *kitten* about water...I need that water to help heal my body. I only care about actual fat.

I was only talking about a carb intolerance which most women experience to difference degrees as they age. As far as the Atkins diet goes I don't think it is a good idea because people tend to lose water weight in the beginning and stop getting any results because they eat too much. Extremely active people need to carb load just to maintain their weight but lets face it that is not the majority of people on MFP. You have to waste your time on all the fad diets before you settle down and realize that the only long term way to lose weight and maintain it is healthy eating of whole foods. That including breads and grains. You mother is the exception to the rule as are athletes, they do not have the fat on their bodies to burn during a run so need the carbs. I am talking about the women trying to lose weigh on this site.

My mom went from 240 - 115 by way of calorie deficit....she ate a balanced diet which I would think pretty much anyone would advocate at any stage, regardless of goals...losing, maintaining, gaining.

i guess I'm a little confused here because on one hand you claim that women can't lose weight unless they're cutting carbs...and then on the other you're saying long term solution is to eat a balanced diet that would include carbs. Are you saying an older woman with a good, balanced macro ratio of say 40c/30p/30f couldn't lose weight with a calorie deficit because carbs are too high? I'd have to strongly disagree.

GiGiBeans · October 2013

1) There is no Adkin's diet. It's Atkins. People maligning a diet they don't even know the spelling of is should make you question how familiar they really are with it.

2) Carbs are restricted initially and then gradually reintroduced. With the exception of the very insulin resistant, grains, potatoes, pasta, rice is added back in during the pre-maintenance phase. You will have learned by that point how much and how often you can include them in your diet without issue - it's pretty individualized.

3) Older women often do have issues with carbs and yes it's often due to less activity. Not every woman is a triathlete like some poster's 60 years old Mom tho. The issues are often hormone related as well, often around the time of peri-mnenopause and start of menopause, when hormones fluctuate wildly. Younger women with PCOS will have this issue quite often as well.

Sure lots of people fail on Atkins. Lots of people fail on other methods as well. One can however succeed on it when done properly if they have their mind set on it.

Atkins IS also however a complete waste of time if being used as a quick weight loss method. It is not eating less carbs, losing weight, then eating some arbitrary amount of carbs. It's starting at 20 for a few weeks and adding 5 more a week, one new food at a time to test tolerance. When you stop losing weight you cut back, if you keep losing keep going.Ten lbs from your goal weight you add grains, starches 10 g more at a time.

I do Atkins because nothing else worked. It was a last resort. It worked and was worth the effort for me. I need to slash carbs regardless of calorie intake to under 75 net. I can eat the same cals higher carb and I will not lose. I can maintain on 175 - 200 tho which leaves me with plenty of carb options.

Can a partial vegetarian have success with Atkins

Replies

Categories