06 Mar 04
Originally posted by CrowleyHi...
Weird...
I just started on the Atkins diet on Monday. This is the first time I've actually tried to follow a diet...The key, as PG put it, is moderation.
I am glad to see that you are trying to take your health into your own hands, but I hope you would check out this website www.atkinsdietalert.org which has LOTS of medical data about the dangers of this diet. You will lose weight- that is not in question- but you will be putting your body at great risk. This site has no industry backing and nothing to gain. For your own health and well-being, I sincerely hope that you will take the information on this site seriously. There are much more effective ways to lose wieght and remain tremendously healthy while you are at it.
Though the principal of moderation is a good one, I believe it is being misused in this thread. We should eat in moderation (if we did, I am sure our obesity rate would drop) but people use this noble idea in ways which are most convenient. For example, I hear many people who espouse this "philosophy" all the while eating all the wrong foods in "moderation" and still don't know why moderation hasn't helped them.
Sure, be moderate...but also be sensible. Moderation within the bounds of sensibile eating will do this principal justice. Atkins diet is not a diet of moderation by any means...it's asking you to do something quite drastic which is why doctors are concerned about it.
06 Mar 04
Originally posted by CrowleyYes, for every point there is a counter point...that is so with any arguement. What is important to look at what is most nutritionally sensbible. PCRM, as I stated before is doing remarkable things reversing osteoporosis, cancer heart disease etc. on a plant based diet. I think that says alot about the diet...in a time where disease is at an all time high....sensibility is important.
Like I said before, for every site you cite (heh) I can cite another that gives pro arguments for it.
Checked out www.atkinsdietalert.org and there they tell me to stop eating animals - that I can't do, doing the vegetarian thing would be the absolute last resort for me.
I am curious why you say that vegetarianism would be a last resort for you?
06 Mar 04
What everyone following Dr. Atkins' diet must understand is that decreasing one's weight or body mass does not necessarily indicate an improvement in overall health. Depriving your body of carbohydrates, which should account for the bulk of your caloric intake, will invariably cause your weight to drop. However, the negative effects, both immediate and long-term, far outweigh that sole benefit. Consuming excess protein, especially proteins of animal origin, inhibits the body's ability to properly utilize vitamins and minerals. The effects of consuming saturated fats have been thoroughly documented. Consuming high amounts of saturated fats, such as one does on the Atkins diet, greatly increases one's risk of being stricken with a myriad of cancers. The single most lethal component of the Atkins diet is the amount of cholesterol consumed. The human body cannot adapt to such a cholesterol-laden diet. Atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries, is the logical consequence of this diet. The human body cannot remove more than a single egg's worth of cholesterol per day. Any amount in excess of that is directly deposited into your arteries, which become clogged and unable to supply blood to your organs. Cholesterol-rich diets are the primary factor behind the astounding rate of heart-related illnesses in the United States. In fact, the three primary causes of death in the United States (heart attack, cancer, stroke) can be both avoided and reverses by adopting a diet low in saturated fats and cholesterol.
Speaking as a nutritionist, a diet free of animal-derived products is optimal for human health. Vegetarianism should not be your "last resort", but rather your long-term health plan.
06 Mar 04
Originally posted by shavixmirwell i didn't realize you were asking this question.
I've still not seen anyone answering my core question: Why should we eat carbohydrates? We didn't use to!
you wrote about Atkin's book being 'a pile of manure', then about dying 'horrible deaths', then 5 differences between chimps and humans (none of which are necessarily true, i think), then asked where you were, then something about how 25,000 years ago humans didn't die because their hearts exploded even though they didn't eat potato, bread or pasta, and finally, something really cryptic 'The only things you really cannot eat, are things we didn't used to eat anyway'.
now, it seems you want to know why we should eat carbs because you claim that we didn't, presumably in our prehistoric past.
perhaps you could specify what it was we did eat in that past so we pursue this in greater detail.
in friendship,
prad
06 Mar 04
Originally posted by pradtfhow about a combination of big fat rhinoceruses (rhinoserii??) and berries and fruits and worms and rats and fingernails and ...
perhaps you could specify what it was we did eat in that past so we pursue this in greater detail.
in friendship,
prad[/b]
is he suggesting it was hard to grind up wheat when you live with a tree cover overhead and no machinery to speak of?
06 Mar 04
4 edits
Originally posted by DrReginaldWicklund
What everyone following Dr. Atkins' diet must understand is that decreasing one's weight or body mass does not necessarily indicate an improvement in overall health.
I just wanna lose weight, I've never really lived a 'healthy' life. I want to burn away my fat reserves in a quickish time. This looks like the best diet to do it with. Bottom line.
Consuming excess protein, especially proteins of animal origin, inhibits the body's ability to properly utilize vitamins and minerals.
Don't know about that. How does the proteins I take in inhibit my body's vitamin and mineral utilization? As stated before, the diet is definately very low in essential mineral and vitamin intake (in the 1st 2 weeks of the diet) - that's why you need to take some supplements.
Consuming high amounts of saturated fats, such as one does on the Atkins diet
The diet states, that you should not be scared to take in some fats, not that you should take in fats by the gallon.
Speaking as a nutritionist, a diet free of animal-derived products is optimal for human health. Vegetarianism should not be your "last resort", but rather your long-term health plan.
I just love the taste of meat, I could never leave it out of my diet.
This is not a 'way of life' for me, I wanna burn some fat and then try to just keep it like that.
I like my meat, but also my veggies and bread.
07 Mar 04
3 edits
Originally posted by shavixmiri think you are fairly correct on this though there was no doubt a fair bit of plant and root eating too. a look at some of the sites dealing with prehistoric diets would support this.
Anyway, I think we ate meat, fruits and nuts.
for instance, examination of paleofeces seems to reveal that
"prehistoric people ate a wide variety of plants and animals"
(http://www.ume.maine.edu/iceage/Research/Contrib/html/contrib12.html)
additionally, in 1972, richard leakey made a proposal based on darwinianism that
"suggested the existence of two separate lines of hominids (Homo and Australopithecus). One, the well-known Australopithecus genus, was composed of primitive, small-brained individuals principally adapted to a diet of roots and hard seeds. The other was the larger-brained, tool-using, omnivorous Homo lineage. Leakey states that Homo is the only hominid to change to meat-eating, first as scavengers and later as hunters." [leakey's lines were later disputed by the discovery of 'lucy']
(http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/video/Making.html)
both these and other references would seem to more or less support your assumption.
given that it would be 'easier' to gather than to hunt and easier to hunt than to farm, chances are that fruits and nuts, plants, roots, prey probably formed the components of the prehistoric diet, the proportions based on the locale which would influence the lifestyle.
given the extra effort required to process grains, i would think it unlikely that pasta and cereal would have been much of a hit back then.
however, this is not to say that there wasn't considerable carb content in the fruits, nuts, plants and roots. for instance., here are some approx carb percentages for common veggies and fruits:
15% Beans, Dandelion Greens, Parsley, Apple, Grapes, Pear
20% Potato, Yam, Corn, Banana, Figs
(www.umassmed.edu/entities/behavmed/nutrition/hearthealth/CarbohydrateContentFruitsandVegetables.cfm)
nuts' carb content apparently varies from 33% (cashews) down to 10% (pecans)
(http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ea2003/ea_030731.shtml)
(based on calculations using 1oz = 30g because they were too irritating to stick to one system)
if you look at this comprehensive carb chart (http://www.ntwrks.com/~mikev/chart5a.htm), you will see that while cereals, breads, and cakes have the highest carb levels, many of the fruits and veggies fare quite respectably and may even be in better nutritional balance.
it would be likely that the prehistoric 'equivalents' would supply both variety and sufficiency easily match these. the variety is probably rather important too in that most write ups on diet (whatever the propaganda bent) seem to agree that we eat far less variety than our ancestors did.
in friendship,
prad
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by shavixmirHI!
I've still not seen anyone answering my core question: Why should we eat carbohydrates? We didn't use to!
We needs carbs for fuel for the body and mind.
Of course fruit should be the main source of our diet when it comes to carb. I am talking abou tFresh ripe organic (wild) fruit.
Take Care,
Big G.
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by jimmyb270LOL! There is a plenty of truth in this statement.
Bah, all these damn crazy get slim quick schemes. Do some bl**dy exercise you lazy gits!
If anyone wants to lose weight do one of 2 things;
1. Eat less until calorie intake < output.
2. Exercise until calorie output > intake.
When desired width is achieved, adjust until intake = output.
There... an entire get slim quick scheme in a few lines. 😀
09 Mar 04
Originally posted by CrowleyRegarding the effect of proteins on vitamin and mineral utilization: consuming excess protein (again with an emphasis on proteins of animal origin) has been documented to inhibit the body's ability to absorb, store and utilize some vitamins and minerals. This is most prevalent with calcium. Studies show that intaking high levels of protein increases the excretion of calcium. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports that subjects consuming excess protein lost an average of twice as much calcium through urinary excretion as the amount of excess protein that was successfully catabolized into energy. Animal proteins have a higher potential renal acid load than vegetable proteins. A high PRAL level means an increase in acid excretion, whereas the negative PRAL value of plant-derived proteins means a reduction in acid excretion. Because the human kidney cannot excrete urine with a pH lower than 5, the sulfates and phosphates contained in acid-producing, animal-derived foods must be buffered with calcium. This calcium is taken from your bones and excreted, rather than being properly utilized by your body.
[b]What everyone following Dr. Atkins' diet must understand is that decreasing one's weight or body mass does not necessarily indicate an improvement in overall health.
I just wanna lose weight, I've never really lived a 'healthy' life. I want to burn away my fat reserves in a quickish time. This looks like the best diet to do it with. Bottom lin ...[text shortened]... some fat and then try to just keep it like that.
I like my meat, but also my veggies and bread.[/b]
Calcium is one of many examples of vitamins and minerals that are adversely affected by the consumption of animal-derived proteins. Consuming these proteins in excess, as the Atkins diet suggests, most certainly destroys your body's ability to utilize the foods you consume. Rather, it simply deprives your body of nutrients and causes short-term weight loss.
As for your desire to lose weight without living healthily, I'll advise you that a thin corpse is a corpse just the same.
Your health is something that shouldn't be compromised.