I've lost bout 50 pounds, and not once have I counted, cared about, or limited my carbs. In fact, I now eat way more carbs than I ever used to - I just watch my overall calories, and choose healthy carbs, like whole grains and vegetables.

Today's carb count was 255 grams with 45 from fiber. I love me some carbs

I think the problem with bashing or pushing a low-carb diet, is that either assumes that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to weight loss. I avoided low carb diets most of my life, and the couple attempts I did make convinced me that they were as evil, and unhealthy as they were often criticized for. Even low-carb diet authors often make the mistake of treating all dieters as the same. The same reason that low carb was probably my best choice (blood sugar issues) was the very same reason that I got very sick from induction (probably low blood sugar symptoms).

Your age, gender, starting weight, activity level, your "normal" eating habits and how long you've had them (have you always avoided vegetables), your age at which you began gaining weight, how long you've been overweight, how overweight you are, where you cary your weight, and any other medical conditions you have - it's not too far-fetched to think that some of those issues will affect which diet is healthiest for a person.

I suspect that as I lose weight, my blood sugar issues will become more normal. Carbohydrates and sugars will probably have less dramatic affect on my blood sugar, and therefore my cravings and hunger. I didn't just dream that up, it's in the medical literature that that's what happens when insulin resistant and diabetic folks lose weight and learn to control their diet to stabilize and normalize blood sugar.

It's pretty easy to tell if you have a carbohydrate-sensitivity. If carbohydrates make you hungrier, you may need to try a low-GI or lower-carb diet. How low? Well, that's easy too, first try swithching to low GI "good carbs" (fruits, starchy and nonstarchy vegetables, whole grains...). If you still find that higher carb "good" foods still trigger overeating or cravings, then maybe limit grains, and see what happens. Keep experimenting until you find what works best for you. If you're feeling great, and losing weight (or maintaining a healthy weight) then you're probably making the right choices for you.

Obviously, this is not relevant where the OP is concerned.

Yep, which I said in my first post. Rather the last post was in response to posts more generically critical or enthusiastic about low-carb. I think a guideline that is great for almost anyone to start with, is to choose the least restrictive food plan that the person finds effective (this may need tweaking along the way, but it's a great place to start).

I think your last point is consistent with virtually all 3FC members' philosophies, so I fail to see how the post represents a response. I, too, think people should adopt the least restrictive plan that best fits their lifestyles, but sadly, we Americans have a long history of dieting lynch mobs that needlessly condemn entire food groups, driving people to diet plans that are unnecessarily restrictive for them.

Ok, then perhaps instead of response, I could or should have said, opinion or comment.

You thinks so? If I'm preaching to the choir, and my post is that redundant, that's absolutely fantastic. I'll admit I haven't seen that. I still see so many posts looking and engaging in extreme methods to lose weight. I still see so many posts asking for the "best" way to lose weight (and since these posts don't give a lot of personal information, I assume they mean "the best" in a generic sense, by implication suggesting in the existence of a one-size-fits-all best) or worrying about small mistakes meaning they're failing... fast weight loss still seems to be on the mind of so many posters. So many traditional myths are rehashed here over and over. If these are truly the expressions of a tiny minority, that's wonderful.


which illustrates the point of my comment.

In essence, yes, I do think you're preaching to the choir. Although you would probably have a better idea given the amount of time you spend on the forum, from my perspective most of the members agree that using the least severe approach that works for them would be ideal. An important point, however, is that the diet trends of decades past has seriously warped people's views about what a healthy, balanced (and energy sufficient) diet looks like. Unfortunately, the slash and burn approach has become the norm, such that it doesn't prompt the serious caution that one should take before even considering it.

Yes, even seasoned 3FC members take unnecessarily drastic measures. Personally, it alarms me when I see 300 pound women eating 1200 calories per day, or starving themselves of much-needed carbohydrates, or vilifying milk and cheese as "poison." The whole fruit-is-deadly fiasco on the Atkins forum some weeks back is just another example. But in today's context of endless diet fads, these methods are far from extreme. Or, at least that's the perception. So lecturing people to take the least extreme measure is rather pointless, especially when they've been conditioned to believe that eating fruit, or meat, or dairy, or whole grains, or fat will surely kill them, or at least make them gain weight.

My two cents.

Kaplods, I think you gave excellent advice to the OP, based on what she asked.

I remember that thread, but to say that anyone on that thread said or implied that fruit is deadly, is a gross overexageration. Rather people made the point that too much of a good thing, can still have negative consequences, as many of us shared our experience of having weight loss stall with fruit overindulgence.

I'm not on Atkins, but am familiar enough to know that fruit is not at all considered inappropriate for OWL, and only to be avoided during the two weeks of induction.

Personally, I think Atkins and other low carb diets "done backwards," would create a less biased view of the Atkins, and carb-controlled eating (which is a better term than low-carb for most plans). By backwards, I mean gradually reducing carbs to find the optimal level, rather than cutting them so drastically and gradually increasing to find the optimal level.

Many diet plans (not just low carb) start with an extremely restrictive starting phase, and I think the science behind the rationales provided (usually detoxing, or carb-withdrawal or craving reduction) are generally pretty flimsy. I think the real motive is providing that "jump-start," that dieters want to see. Without it, a diet plan, doesn't have much chance of becoming popular.

I agree that lecturing is pointless, mostly because lecturing to adults (and to children, too for that matter) is rude and arrogant, and I hope my comments did not come across as a lecture. Sharing information and opinions is not pointless though, because opinions are not static constants, people develop opinions, in part, based on the influence of opinions they encounter, so I don't think it's at all pointless to present the opinion in favor of least restrictive methods for weight loss. After all, it's the prevalence of the extreme opinions that provide the "conditioning." The more that less extreme methods are proposed, the more it will be seen as a legitimate option.

Barring glucose-intolerance, as I don't know enough about it to comment, there was actually a research article released recently in the New England Journal of Medicine that looked at the effectiveness of different diet compositions (Fat/Carb/Protein percentages) over 2 years. It's called Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates. I looked it up in Google Scholar, you can read the whole article. I can't post the link because I only have 22 posts and I need 25. Heh. You can find it by searching the title and hitting "recent". It should be the first article, then.

Anyway, they looked at diets with low and high protein, low and high fat, and low and high carbohydrates over a 2 year period (to gauge long-term results.) All the diets were calorie-restricted based on the individual's energy requirements. The researchers also looked into the dieter's feeling of hunger.

It's VERY interesting. Basically, their conclusion is that the fat/carb/protein proportions of the diet aren't important. The important thing is that there is a reduction in calories, that it's something that can be maintained over the long-term. Across all the diets, there were similar levels of hunger/satiety, too, which was interesting to me. There's a WHOLE lot more to the article, but that's the nut shell of it.

The study was exciting in that it looked at the long-term, which is the all important thing after all, right?

I think you're fine. The biggest thing is that you're making healthy choices. I'm not counting carbs but I try not to overload on them either. If I'm going to eat some it's going to be from a good source like whole wheat or fruits. Carbs from fruit are a good thing!

Ah not really. Well, yes, the people posting didn't really call fruit deadly. But the thread started as a pointer to an article that yes, pretty much called fruit a poison That was why the thread degenerated - an article was posted that took an extreme viewpoint, people responded to the article, and then persons took offense because Atkin's isn't that extreme. Well, yes, maybe it's not, but the article was.

Yes, the article was extreme, but the distinction between the article's viewpoint and those of the posters is an important one. The OP presented the article as "interesting," (a neutral comment). I think the strongest "agreement" with the article, was not much of an agreement, but more of a " maybe there's a shred of truth to the opinion," and certainly not a "we've swallowed what this guy is saying, hook, line and sinker."

Oy, this is making my head hurt. Nevermind.