JerseyGyrl, for me the Atkins diet would not be a very nutrient rich diet, because right now fruits and veggies (a wide variety of them, not just greens) make up the bulk of what I eat. I can't imagine ever restricting mangoes or squash or bananas just because they have lots of carbs. Heavily processed junk, sugary snacks, salty foods, and saturated fat are the problem, not carbs per se. And I'm definitely uncomfortable with the amount of sodium and saturated fat in the Atkins diet.
The research in support of low carb diets is very sparse. I think a lot of people fail to understand that because the media doesn't report scientific research very well, and in general we're not a very scientifically literate culture. Most of the support for Atkins comes from anecdotal reports (i.e., well I lost weight, my mom's cholesterol is better, my friend is healthier, etc.) which aren't really informative.
I think each person should do what works for them, and if that means doing Atkins, fine. Personally, though, I'd rather stick with something that is nutritionally sound and closer to the natural diet of my family and ancestors (Mediterranean type with lots of fruits, veggies, grains, fish and nuts), and not worry about what health effects may come 20, 30 or 40 years from now as a consequence.
I think atkins is a great plan for those who can follow it and do it correctly and for LIFE. I could not do this because im just not the type of person that could follow it exactly and i know that. I also love pasta too much and dont think i could eliminate it even for 2 weeks. However, for those that can follow this plan correctly i give them great props for being able to follow a strict meal plan. i think JerseyGyrl is proof enough that it can and does work. You just have to be able to stick to it for life.
I did it but I couln't keep it up. I think if you want something atkins like - but still enjoy whole grains etc etc WW core is your best bet (or GI based diets) =)
Nausea, headaches, dizziness are common reactions to extremely low carbohydrate eating for many people. Plans will often attribute the symptoms to "detoxing" or "withdrawal" or some such, but it is my personal opinion that some people just do not tolerate super low carb eating.
Just wanted to respond to this bit. From my experience, the detox symptoms really ARE detox symptoms. Any time I have ever quit sugar entirely, even while keeping sufficient healthy carbs from veggies/fruits/grains/beans/dairy in my diet, I have had symptoms of detox--headaches, fatigue, crankiness, weakness. Obviously this is just anecdotal evidence, but to my knowledge there's not been any science done on this phenomenon. I'd just urge you not to dismiss out-of-hand the possibility that sugar detox is a real thing.
I'm not dismissing the possibility of detox. However, the problem is that headaches, fatigue, crankiness, weakness are very vague symptoms, and attributable to not only detox or withdrawal, but to hypoglycemia, electrolyte imbalance and other physiological states as well.
Whether it's detox or low blood sugar, many people find the symptoms so unpleasant or disturbing, they refuse to continue, believing they just can't "do" low carb. There is no evidence that "tapering off" is less effective than "cold-turkey," but it's rarely discussed as an option.
Which I think it too bad, because I think it would open low carb to more people and hopefully better research.
And to someone who talked of rumor, no, Dr. Atkins definitely died from significant injury sustained from a slip on the ice.
Sorry, didn't mean to blaspheme - I did say it was a rumor. There were reports flying around at the time that the fall was brought on by a heart attack. He himself issued a statement in 2002 stating he was recovering from cardiac arrest but that it had been brought on by an infection; and there actually was an official report released (accidentally?) by the Medical Examiners office that said Dr. Atkins did suffer from heart disease and hypertension at the time of his death - (wait, wait, don't get mad, there's a however) however, because there was no autopsy, they couldn't confirm or deny whether it may have been congenital or viral so there is no (and never will be) conclusive evidence either way and means it is entirely possible that he might not have even made it to 72 without adopting the diet he did. But, no autopsy is also why there was no option but to use the visible head trauma as COD on his death certificate.
I also did say that there have been many modifications since the original book came out. The original book (which came out in the 1970s - which probably makes it older than you? ) is the one that gave the program a bad rap. You should see if you can find a copy - bet you wouldn't even recognize it. Been a long time since I dug it out but, as I recall, the original book makes no distinction between the carbs from a cranberry and the carbs from a cupcake. Also makes no distinction between fat from bacon and fat from avocado - it basically just says "carbs bad, fat good". It allowed very few vegetables (even the leafy green ones were to be used in small portions), almost no fruits, grains (whole or not) or legumes, and the suggested menus contained lots of red meat and full fat dairy products - A fast food cheeseburger was fine as long as you didn't eat the bun; and you could melt cheese on top of your bacon if you wanted - as long as you didn't put it on toast...... As I said, I haven't entirely read the newer version but I would venture to guess those things probably aren't in it anywhere
I think the more important thing that I said in that post (so I'll repeat it ) was that the entire program should be researched before even trying to start to see if it was something that would fit their lifestyle long term.
I think the problem is that Atkins (the most recent incarnation) never does say what the ideal carb level is for anyone after induction (which I think is why induction is usually used to evaluate the plan). On OWL and maintenance, it is the person's responsibility to find their optimal carb level. So, it's hard to say that the plan it is unrealistic, or unhealthy because a lot depends on the choices made by the individual. Very circular logic could be applied, and argued that if a person is suffering ill effects from the diet, that is proof that they are not following the diet correctly, as they have not chosen the appropriate carb level for themselves.
Because low carb plans are poorly understood, often even unfortunately by those following them, they are very difficult to evaluate. However, I think it's very important that better research be done, because there is a connection between carbohydrates and some health problems. My doctor told me that Insulin Resistant patients appear to respond much better to lower carb eating than other food plans. I've found this very true for myself, but the research is still in it's infancy. A whole foods, healthy fat, carbohydrate controlled plan surely has a different impact than all-you-can-eat bacon fests, and a 20 g plan has to have a diffrent impact than a 120 g plan (both possible within Atkins), but the research doesn't always distinguish (in fact, it rarely does as the exact carb intake of study participants isn't generally included).
I'm not dismissing the possibility of detox. However, the problem is that headaches, fatigue, crankiness, weakness are very vague symptoms, and attributable to not only detox or withdrawal, but to hypoglycemia, electrolyte imbalance and other physiological states as well.
Whether it's detox or low blood sugar, many people find the symptoms so unpleasant or disturbing, they refuse to continue, believing they just can't "do" low carb. There is no evidence that "tapering off" is less effective than "cold-turkey," but it's rarely discussed as an option.
Which I think it too bad, because I think it would open low carb to more people and hopefully better research.
Can't disagree with that. I think 99% of people on the Standard American Diet would benefit hugely merely by eliminating refined sugars from their diets. That wouldn't be "low carb" but it would undoubtedly be "less-carb." It's funny how the middle ground where ALL healthy diets agree is a place that can't be discussed, though...likely that's the media effect. ("Be Sensible" isn't a compelling headline, I guess )
("Be Sensible" isn't a compelling headline, I guess )
_______________________________________________
AIN'T THAT THE AWFUL TRUTH!!!!!
We've come to want everything immediately, if not sooner. Instant gratification has gotten alot of us into this (overweight) mess, and we look to instant gratification to get us out. Is it a wonder that it doesn't often work that way!
This article talks about the glossed over health risks of Atkins, then discusses the fact there are no real substantial longitudinal studies into the longterm effectiveness anyway - but cites some research that suggests maybe 96% of Atkins dieters regain:
Quote:
One might wonder why the Atkins' Diet has been successful even though studies have exposed these serious risks. Perhaps the most obvious reason is that the rapid weight loss provides the dieter with rapid reinforcement for his or her weight- loss effort. The dieter might assume that the weight-loss is fat reduction, as Atkins would have us believe, while ignoring possible heath risks. But how will the dieter enjoy the weight loss? Actually, no one knows. There have been no long-term studies on the effectiveness of the Atkins' Diet, even by Atkins. Atkins cites vague reasons that his diet has long-term worth by claiming that the permitted, low- carbohydrate food is so delicious that dieters would have little difficulty following his diet for an extended period of time. The longest amount of time that Atkins cites for successful weight loss maintenance is six to twelve months. In fact, one study estimated the weight regain from the Atkins' Diet to be 96%. At any rate, the need for a long-term study on the effectiveness of the Atkins' Diet is clearly needed, as supported by many sources (1), (3), (4), (7).
Without results from a long- term study one can not safely assume that low- carbohydrate diets, such as Atkins', are effective. The dieter is ultimately responsible for his or her own decision to ignore health risks in favor of shedding a extra weight.
Which agree with what some have said above, that the very thing Atkins appeals to - eat cr4p but still lose weight fast - (and I know it's marketed differently now its more recent incarnations borrowing the 'look we're healthy really' guff from South Beach... but essentially that was the message that sold it to the masses in the mid 1990s) - and the old magic bullet - is what hooks them in but also ultimately, live by the sword you die by it - the same quick shrink is at the root of the quick regain.
Last edited by PhatPhoenix; 06-26-2008 at 05:28 PM.
The studies are interesting, and the results and implications have to be considered. Unfortunately in many ways, weight loss research is still pretty much in its infancy.
There seems to be growing research that some health problems respond better to one food plan over another. The Zone is said to be more effective (for weight loss and pain management) for fibromyalgia and CFIDS. The Ornish plan shows dramatic improvement for cardiac patients (though compliance is notoriously difficult). And lower carb plans may be more effective for insulin resistance, hypothyroid, and diabetes, as well as possibly transplant patients and others on prednisone and other corticosteroids.
One thing that is often overlooked is that each of us, to a certain degree, has to conduct our own experiment, one in which we have to be both scientist and lab rat.
As I am reducing carbs, my blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar and AC1, as well as my autoimmune panel (I have an undiagnosed autoimmune disorder) have all improved.
I've noticed that while Atkins and other low carb diets are considered to be very high in fat and protein, it is very much possible to be eating less meat and fat on a low carb plan than you were eating before. For me, this is very true. High carb plans make me hungrier and I eat more overall - from all food groups. Lower carb though, I eat less from every food group.
Also the definition of "low carb" is still being debated. Recently there was a study quoted that was used to "debunk" low carb, "proving" that a high carb breakfast was better than low carb. However, in closer examination the "high carb" dieters were consuming 97 g of carbs daily on average. Considering that plans with as much as 150 and even 200 g of carbs have been identified as "low carb," the research really can't be compared effectively until the definitions are agreed upon.
But one thing that most people do have available to them, is at least some degree of medical supervision. Cardiac disease doesn't happen overnight, and blood pressure, cholesterol levels, blood sugar.... can be used to guage a persons response to ANY food plan. For example, although I'm not on Atkins, but a diet closer to South Beach or WW Core, I would reconsider my choice if my cholesterol, and other labs were headed in the "wrong" direction.
Nothing replaces personal monitoring. It really doesn't matter what works for "most" people, if it doesn't work for you.
My mom has gone on the Atkins diet to lose weight several times after having kids, and lost 60 lbs on it at one point. The trick to Atkins is not eating any carbs (as she did) or very few in the beginning as instructed by the diet plan. For the first week she did not eat carbs, only protein. The second week she added very few carbs (a piece of cheese, some ketchup). And then she gradually added a few more carbs every week. However, she describes the first two weeks as horrible, not because of the hunger, but because of how only eating protein makes you feel. It made her sick, dizzy, tired, and cranky, with severe cravings for carbs. Her determination to lose the weight was greater. She lost 30 lbs rapidly, within a few weeks, and the rest of the weight came off with limited carbs. She only used this diet for rapid weight loss. It is not something I would do, because it sounds dangerously unhealthy and hard to maintain. She, however, maintains her weight by eating an egg or two in the morning, and then reasonable dinner in the evening. This seems to have worked for her, where other diets would not get the weight off as quickly.
Even on induction, you really shouldn't be eating NO carbs. The diet specifies a limit of 20 carbs, and I think anything less than that is going to cause some pretty unpleasant side effects. For me, even the 20 carbs is too low, and I will never do induction again, because of it especially while I'm on blood sugar lowering medication like metformin. I'm afraid my husband wouldn't survive MY induction, as induction makes me very, very irritable (duck and cover, world!)
Again, it is why I wish that Atkins and other low(er) carb plans would acknowledge the legitimacy of the "backwards" approach of slowly reducing carbs to find the optimal level, rather than virtually eliminating carbs and gradually increasing carbs to find the optimal level.
I have to admit that I cannot take credit for the idea gradual carb reduction. Rather, I had a consultation last year with the dietician and doctor for the local weight management clinic in our hospital. It's an excellent program, but very few insurances cover the $2500 15 month program. Every person receives an individualized plan and one on one and group support. The clinic shares the building with the YMCA building and physical therapy clinic and patients get a sigificantly reduced Y membership if they join. The doctor heading the program was amazing, and even though I couldn't join the program because my insurance won't cover it, and we can't afford it on our disability income, the doctor gave me the two best pieces of weight loss advice I have EVER gotten.
She and her husband lost about 200 lbs together on a modified Atkins (less saturated fat and more fruit than typical). She suggested shortening or eliminating induction and the option of gradually reducing carbs. And the second piece of advice was to stack my birth control (eliminate the period week by starting new pack instead of taking the placebos for week 3). I had told nearly every doctor I'd ever seen that I spent two weeks every month losing what I had gained during period week, and only had a 1 week window of opportunity to lose weight. Dr. Reed (the weight loss clinic doctor) told me that progestin often plays a role in hormonal cravings and that stacking the bc was safe and might help (OH BOY, did it ever!).
The advice from K is great. I started on WW and gradually reduced my carbs and I felt great doing that. I don't think cold turkey would have worked for me. I think Atkins is misunderstood in some ways- you can eat alot of veggies- probably more than you ever did since there aren't many carbs in veggies. It is the starches that add significant carbs into our diet not the veggies. Are they bad for you? We are all different -for me cutting out starches really eliminates cravings and that makes weight loss so much easier for me. I wouldn't say I am on the Atkins diet but I am certainly following some of its principles. I feel like I am eating really well- healthy meat, lots of veggies I just don't eat the bun or potatos. I will admit I am not a big fruit eater but I never was- veggies have more nutrients anyway. Berry season is about to start and I love fresh berries so I will incorporate them into my diet.
The BC pill tip is also one that works for me.
It's really kind of sad that so much of this journey still has to be trial and error. To a large degree, it may always be, but still - having complained about monthly cravings and binging for at least 25 years (before I even graduated high school) to nearly every doctor I ever saw (even an allergist), you would have thought someone might have considered suggesting the bc adjustment. It made such an incredible difference in appetite, it really was pretty close to a miracle. I can't help but wonder what that miracle would have brought if I'd experienced it at age 20, when I was active and had a healthy metabolism, instead of after 40 and on disability with pain and mobility issues.
Egh, water under the bridge, as they say.
But I cannot stress enough how different my hunger and appetite is, on the bc and low carb eating. I literally have felt CRAZED with hunger nearly every moment of my life, at least since kindergarten and up until I discovered that eliminating TOM would bring much of it under control, and low carb would bring it the rest of the way. Before these discoveries, I was constantly, every waking moment (and in many dreams as well) obsessed with food and eating. Even after stuffing myself until nearly bursting, I would still feel starved. Truly, a nightmare.
- I did say it was a rumor. There were reports flying around at the time that the fall was brought on by a heart attack. He himself issued a statement in 2002 stating he was recovering from cardiac arrest but that it had been brought on by an infection; and there actually was an official report released (accidentally?) by the Medical Examiners office that said Dr. Atkins did suffer from heart disease and hypertension at the time of his death - (wait, wait, don't get mad, there's a however) however, because there was no autopsy, they couldn't confirm or deny whether it may have been congenital or viral so there is no (and never will be) conclusive evidence either way and means it is entirely possible that he might not have even made it to 72 without adopting the diet he did. But, no autopsy is also why there was no option but to use the visible head trauma as COD on his death certificate. 
) is the one that gave the program a bad rap. You should see if you can find a copy - bet you wouldn't even recognize it. Been a long time since I dug it out but, as I recall, the original book makes no distinction between the carbs from a cranberry and the carbs from a cupcake. Also makes no distinction between fat from bacon and fat from avocado - it basically just says "carbs bad, fat good". It allowed very few vegetables (even the leafy green ones were to be used in small portions), almost no fruits, grains (whole or not) or legumes, and the suggested menus contained lots of red meat and full fat dairy products - A fast food cheeseburger was fine as long as you didn't eat the bun; and you could melt cheese on top of your bacon if you wanted - as long as you didn't put it on toast...... As I said, I haven't entirely read the newer version but I would venture to guess those things probably aren't in it anywhere 
