CaRbO CoNsCiOuS ArE We?

Chunky: Why do u think I am a supporter of this diet when i clearly told u NOT to think of me like that in my last post?

I was merely explaining where u were wrong in your misconceptions of the Atkins diet. Therefore, its probably a little less dangerous than u thought it was!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where in that post do I make any assumption that you are in favor of the diet?

I was just pointing out more evidednce as to why it's not a paricularly healthy way to lose weight, and it is in no way a means to get physically fit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the quote I mentioned in my last post. Indirectly u were telling me stuff I already know. The only reason u would do that is to show me that it is a bad diet for those reasons. I ALREADY KNOW its a bad diet for those reasons!

Anyway, exercise is the way to go

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I say in the earlier post that low carb diets can lead to a depletion of muscle mass, you counter with, "It actually increases potential for more muscle mass." I come back with a factual, scientifically based explanation of exactly how it leads to the depletion of muscle mass, and you come back with, "You're telling me something I already know."

Just how does that work, exactly?

 

This is where u are wrong. U said the ATKINS diet leads to muscle wastage and that is not a complete statement. It should lead to a greater potential for muscle building.

Any of my other corrections u care to discuss?

 

I explained how low carb leads to muscle wastage fairly thoroughly. You basically come back and say, "No it doesn't" with no factual information to back it up. Where is your scientific, physiological backup for that statement?

 

Didn't u just read what i said? U said that the ATKINS diet leads to muscle wastage.

Do u agree on that before I continue?

 

Is Atkins not a low carb diet. Hell, is it not THE low carb diet?

 

Not just that. It is a high protein diet.

 

Right. It has to be. Because, as I said, your body has to use that less efficient source of energy for glucose production instead of muscle building, since there are so few carbs available. Trouble is, it just doesn't last as long and not as much energy comes from protein as from carbs. So, your body uses protein, which, as I said, leads to depletion of muscle mass because your body needs the protein it pulls from the muscle production to make glucose for energy. Once that cycle is started, it's difficult for it to go back the other way. This is one reason why people who go off the diet regain the weight, plus some. Their bodies are used to using protein for energy, so when they do start eating more carbs again, it's just stored as glycogen and eventually converted to fat ... fat that can't be metabolized as easily because of less muscle mass. Again, the vicious cycle.

Carbs to start the fire, fat to keep the fire going, protein for muscle building and enzyme production. Just not good to rely on protein for glucose production.

 

Sounds quite good except for one contradiction:

How do u explain this?

 

Maybe I should have put it this way:

Your body uses carbs for one thing: Energy.
Your body uses fat for mutliple things: Long term storage of energy, fat soluable vitamin storage, and creation of hormones and neurotransmitters.
It uses protein for muscle building, general structural stuff, and production of enzymes.

The amazing thing about the body is it can turn any of those things into glucose if it needs to. Say you're stranded on a desert island and can't get any food. Your body can subsist on stored fat and muscle if it needs to. Now, of course, the "Desert Island Diet" would not be healthy, but it would get you by for a few weeks (as long as you have water) and you'd lose a lot of weight.

The problem with high protein, low carb and diets, is the fact that being a diet intended to help one lose weight, they are (obvioulsy) overall low in calories. Low calorie means not a lot of energy. This means that protein is forced to take upon itself the extra duty of being a source of glucose, in addition to its structural duties. However, it simply is not as efficient at making glucose as carbohydrate is, and it takes more protein to make the energy you need to get along than what is needed to make muscle. So, since it expends so much of its substance to make glucose, there isn't enough left over to build muscle properly.

Simply put, since the sole purpose of carbohydrates is to make energy, why not USE that for energy. Let your body use the protein for what it needs the protein for, and let it use the fat for what it needs it for?

Now, bodybuilders who need more protein to build their muscles will eat a lot more protein than the average person. A LOT more. And this WILL lead to added muscle mass. However, the typical bodybuilder may have a daily intake of 3500 to 5000 calories! Not a very good plan to be on if you're not weightlifting and trying to lose weight.

 

I thought the idea of a weight loss diet was to get your body to burn stored fat for energy.

 

Think of fat as a pile of charcoal briquets. Throw a match on them...nothing. Then, soak them in lighter fluid. Match... POOF. Lighter fluid burns a nice pretty yellow and blue flame for about 20 minutes. However, you can't cook on that flame. It's not hot enough and doesn't last very long. After that flame dies out, the charcoal has built up a considerable amount of internal heat and can burn for hours.

During exercise, Carbs (glucose) = lighetr fluid, Fat = charcoal.

When you eat carbs, they are stored in your body as glycogen for 24-36 hours. If it's not used, it is converted to fat. If it's used (exercise) it is converted to energy. That energy doesn't last long, because sugar burns fast. Your body then starts to release fatty acids from their various storage areas to be used as energy. This is when you really start to lose punds. The trick is, this doesn't really start to happen until you have been exercising for a good amount of time (12-15 miuntes at target heart rate). Your body will, at first, want to use whatever available (non stored) sugars it has at its disposal. It wants to hoard that glycogen. Once that is burned up, it goes to deeper stores. Eventually, you start to burn fat. The cool thing is, the more you exercise and build muscle, the more fat burning capacity you have. You get to where you're burning fat even in your sleep. Your muscles need that energy.

What this all boils down to is that you want to burn fat through aerobic exercise. It's how our bodies are set up. It is the best and healthiest way to lose fat. Trying to fool the body and make it do something it wasn't set up to do (use protein to for glucose production while also being low cal) simply is not healthy, and certainly not something to do for a long period of time.

If you see any diet that promises 5, 10, 15lbs of weight loss a week, it is most certainly unhealthy. It is not physically possible to lose more than 2-3 lbs of fat in a week's time. If you lose more weight than that, you are mostly losing water (which will come right back) and likely muscle mass as well.

So yes, the whole idea is to burn fat. You just can't do that without exercising.

 

No, this is the key. Apparently Atkins is not a low cal diet. U can eat the same or even more calories in protein rather than carbs and still lose weight I believe! If I am wrong then ok but this has been the problem all along then!

 

Again...the point is not to lose weight. Any diet (low carb included) will make you lose weight. (As will cancer, starvation, AIDS, etc.) You want to lose fat and become fit.

 

I knew u would pick on that! I meant weight as in fat. The word diet I am using in the biological sense whereby it doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in calories.

 

Typically, people on Atkins and its ilk eat fewer calories, whether or not it's intrinsic to the program itself, simply because the types of fatty/protein rich foods make them feel fuller faster, so they just end up eating less food overall.

 

The diet does propose that u lose weight(fat) when eating the same amount of calories on the diet as u would off it. Do u think THAT is true?

 

I'm not saying that you don't lose any fat at all on these diets, I'm saying that you lose some fat, but the bulk of the total weight that is lost is water (easily and quickly regainable) and muscle mass (to your detriment in the longterm scheme of things, as previously stated). This is how people lose so much weight so quickly in the beginning stages. It's been shown that it'sphysically impossible to lose more than 2-3 lbs of body fat in a week's time. Many people are reporting 5-10lbs per week or more. So, if it is impossible to lose more than 3 lbs a week and you lose 10, where does the other 7lbs come from? The bulk of that is water and muscle. Has to be...sure aren't losing bones or organs or limbs.

So, yes, you can and do lose some fat on diets such as Atkins, but the danger I see is the cost in muscle mass that tends to go along with it, in addition to the false hope that's garnered from the water weight that's lost, which will quickly be regained. Not to mention the potential for diminishment of vital nutrients. Longterm is what I'm looking at. Unfortunately, there are few studies regarding the longterm effects because few people stay on these diets for long enough to perform those studies. It's too complicated with all the stages and stuff (which can be a draw at the beginning..."weight loss surely can't be simple because so many people have a hard time with it. If a program is complex with many stages, it should work"). The early part of the diet is boring and hard to maintain as well as being inconvenient.

I went to Atkins' website and looked at their FAQ. There were a number of questions regarding constipation, diarrhea, etc. This is because of the low level of fiber in the early stages of the diet. Their answer? Take supplements! Hell...why not just eat some damned fiber! Or, "I worry about not getting enough vitamins because I'm not eating fruits and vegetables." Answer? Take supplements! ("Which, we happen to sell, by the way....") Why not just eat some damn fruits and vegetables and get your vitamins?

In general, if you eat right (whole grains, lean protein sources, low amounts of poly and mono unsaturated fats, lots of fruits and vegetables) you should never have to take any supplements. You should get all the fiber, vitamins, minerals and essential amino acids your body needs. If you exercise regularly, you will burn fat. It's a longer, slower process, but will be much more beneficial in the long run.

People like these diets for many reasons. They can eat foods they previously believed to be verboten like steak and eggs and cheese, it's different and goes against long standing ideals of nutrition and weight loss, so being such a radical idea and "outside the box", it must be good (people like it when an idea is "outside the box") ... same goes for the fact that, as mentioned before, it's complicated and justifies itself with lots of fancy medical talk, and, most importantly, the number on the scale goes down, so whether it's fat, muscle, or water they're losing, they don't care because they've lost weight...so it's good.