PDA

View Full Version : Say hello to the newbie!



rise
06-07-2003, 02:52 AM
Hello everyone! :)

I've been lurking on this forum for a little bit now, and I think its time I've registered and added this forum to my daily favorites.
I haven't been training long, but once my finals are over, I'm going to be spending a lot of time in the gym.

I haven't lifted in about 2 years, so some recommendations would be very helpful!
I've been on keto (specifically atkins) for about a month and half now, and I've lost 16lbs and 3% bodyfat. I'm currently 5'6.5" (the half inch matters!) with 18%bf and weigh 158.

My goals are to get down to about 10% bodyfat and put on some mass, so I was wondering if a switch to a CKD or TKD for me would be better. Or is it not needed at all, since I am a beginner? I hear the largest gains are in the first couple of months, so I want to start off right, by asking the right people of course! Thanks :D

AlexBBbegginer
06-07-2003, 01:18 PM
Id say get off that crazy diet, its bad for u.
What you will lose is lots of water and muscle, and only a tiny amount of fat, if u dont believe me look @ what you said

16lbs lost

3% bodyfat

if your starting weight was 174lbs @ 21% bf
(going by what your saying)

then to lose 3% of that in fat youd be on about 169lbs

11lbs of lean muscle was lost! and only 5lbs of fat!:eek: :eek: :eek:

Get your cholesterol checked too, i bet you thats sky high!

And if you think thats bad, as soon as you start eating carbs again (YOU WILL HAVE TOO) you will gain fat faster than McDonalds kitchen floor!
So your fat will increase and this time the percentage of fat to lean body mass will be worse due to you having less muscle.

Do you follow me??

Theres ways to lose fat mate, fad diets are not the way. Weights cardio and proper food is the only true way to succeed. You really have to get down and read, and ask questions. Theres a lot of clever and helpful Guys/Girls on these boards that can point you in the right direction. You also have to do your own reading and really educate yourself about how your body works, that should be your starting point.

and HI btw!:D

GhettoSmurf
06-07-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by AlexBBbegginer
Id say get off that crazy diet, its bad for u.
What you will lose is lots of water and muscle, and only a tiny amount of fat, if u dont believe me look @ what you said



are you talking about keto diets?

there is nothing wrong with keto diets, and in fact they can be very muscle sparing IF DONE *CORRECTLY*

AlexBBbegginer
06-07-2003, 02:53 PM
Hes doing an atkins, and to pull off that type of diet, youd need additonal supplements as well as totally healthy sources of protein that means as saturate free as possible.
Personally i dont feel that stuffing my face with nothing but protien and fat would aid my health, i know some ppl believe strongly that this double minus = a big plus
but i just dont buy into it.
Too much protein is poisonous to your body since it raises blood acidity and puts extra strain on your liver and kidneys to clean it (too much = more than 40g per meal)
plus all that saturated fat from frying, butter and cheese ..isnt that just topping you up with the fat IF not more that what you should be burning off? as well as raising LDL and trigliceride levels to danger points?
its a nice theory Mr(;)) atkins, but cutting out 4 food groups veg, fruit, cereals,grains is depriving your body of vits and minerals. Dr atkins btw has his own brand of vit supplements, cos his diet plan basically sucks and kills you unless you hit the balance in his magical equation. (I mean this as in, if you ate like it for good you WOULD die since it WILL screw you up so bad, atikins claimed it can be used as long as you wanted PFFFFFFF)
Yes making stored fat your primary fuel source ...isnt the best way to do that using HIIT to create a calorific debt+shock your system to burn fat and eat 6 meals to raise your metabolism to the point where it eats fat all day and night?(in so few words)
simply by cutting carbs you will drop a lot of weight anyway all of a sudden, that is a well known fact.
But to make fat your primary (and ineffecient) fuel source shouldnt just be a matter of dieting gone DRASTICLY mad and up its own A** in terms of theory.
This plan was made in the early 70's its now 2003 and its a fashionable diet since it has quick results such as RISE here who lost 16lbs in 6 weeks (only 5lbs fat tho) If it was such a great diet then it would have revolutionised eating and the world diet, since carbs would no longer be necessary in fact they would be the Enemy since they stop you from losing fat!
I dont know any true success stories from this diet, in fact i just know how many of the girls (lazy fat 1's) try it..lose a stone or 2... go back to eating carbs (cos of teh craving) and gain it all back.
Id be willing to bet they lost F*** all fat as well, this isnt a rant about keto diets since i only really know anything about atkins version, but if they are anything like it...id keep well away.:read:

AlexBBbegginer
06-07-2003, 02:56 PM
also its not a good basis for weight training with, ud need proper!!!! food 6 times a day

rise
06-07-2003, 04:04 PM
sorry i wasnt being clear before, but i meant to say that the highest ive ever weighed was 174, but did not know what my bf% was then.

i used a bodyfat scale to obtain my previous 22% bf number but I cannot remember what my weight was when I measured it together. Im a beginner, so I'm not sure on when and how to weigh myself consistently enough to get an accurate number, but I think I'm currently around 158-160. please dont take my numbers as completely accurate.

I do take supplements and try to eat lean meats and good fats as much as possible, but I dont understand how much worse Atkins is than an CKD or TKD?

I browsed the nutritional section of this forum and I have found many members are on some form of a ketogenic diet, so I'm not sure how much worse I am off...

It just seems to me that keto diets have been proven to be an alternative way to lose fat, as many recent studies have proven.
http://www.lowcarbresearch.org

I didnt mean to offend anyone who is a strong believer in calorie-deficient dieting, but perhaps with more research on both our parts we can learn more.

this is quite a welcome :redface:

rise
06-07-2003, 04:19 PM
could a moderator move this to the nutrition section please? :D

NateDogg
06-07-2003, 10:11 PM
Alex, I don't think you really want to go there with the "too much [protein] = more than 40g per meal" thing.

Beyond that, I believe you need to do a little more research on the Atkins diet.

No, eating more fat is not "just topping you up with the fat IF not more that what you should be burning off?"
...and the Atkin's diet has often been shown to reduce LDL levels.

Here is one time...

Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program.

Westman EC, Yancy WS, Edman JS, Tomlin KF, Perkins CE.

Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, 2200 West Main Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA. ewestman@duke.edu

To determine the effect of a 6-month very low carbohydrate diet program on body weight and other metabolic parameters.Fifty-one overweight or obese healthy volunteers who wanted to lose weight were placed on a very low carbohydrate diet (<25 g/d), with no limit on caloric intake. They also received nutritional supplementation and recommendations about exercise, and attended group meetings at a research clinic.

The outcomes were body weight, body mass index, percentage of body fat (estimated by skinfold thickness), serum chemistry and lipid values, 24-hour urine measurements, and subjective adverse effects.

Forty-one (80%) of the 51 subjects attended visits through 6 months. In these subjects, the mean (+/- SD) body weight decreased 10.3% +/- 5.9% (P <0.001) from baseline to 6 months (body weight reduction of 9.0 +/- 5.3 kg and body mass index reduction of 3.2 +/- 1.9 kg/m(2)). The mean percentage of body weight that was fat decreased 2.9% +/- 3.2% from baseline to 6 months (P <0.001). The mean serum bicarbonate level decreased 2 +/- 2.4 mmol/L (P <0.001) and blood urea nitrogen level increased 2 +/- 4 mg/dL (P <0.001).

Serum total cholesterol level decreased 11 +/- 26 mg/dL (P = 0.006),
low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 10 +/- 25 mg/dL (P = 0.01),
triglyceride level decreased 56 +/- 45 mg/dL (P <0.001),
high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level increased 10 +/- 8 mg/dL (P <0.001),
and the cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio decreased 0.9 +/- 0.6 units (P <0.001).

There were no serious adverse effects, but the possibility of adverse effects in the 10 subjects who did not adhere to the program cannot be eliminated. A very low carbohydrate diet program led to sustained weight loss during a 6-month period. Further controlled research is warranted.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial

PMID: 12106620 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Add to that vegetarians, I believe often need to supplement their diets with soy protein, iron, vitamin B, etc.

I'm by no means saying that the Atkin's diet is optimal, just that your rant seems a little skewed.

rise
06-08-2003, 01:25 AM
great point nate!

I also have read many people's accounts on how after being on a keto diet, their triglycerides, blood pressure and cholesterol has lowered a great deal!

Since my father is also on a low-carb diet now, I wonder how his blood test will look like. He recently became a type II diabetic so now he must change his eating habits from a not-so-carbcentric one :)

AlexBBbegginer
06-08-2003, 04:49 AM
nate i know u arent thick and i have read some really good points by you and all, but that data (i might be reading it wrong since its sunday morning and i dont have a calculator handy) but it appears to show that YES the subjects lost weight, but not very much of it appeared to be fat.
There levels of hdl increased (thats good i know) and ldl and trig decreased (very positive) however it says nothing about what supplements where used, or what food they ate, and how it was cooked etc IMO its not a very clear report and doesnt present the results or method as well as it could.
These tests are normally carried out on individuals who are taught about the food they should eat and how they should prepare it. Whereas joe average knows nothing about diet or fitness, weighs 250 lbs and does 20 situps a day hoping to get a 6 pack... then he/she reads of hears about this diet and will try it due to its popularity and the fact that they can lose 20lbs in 2 months!
Maybe it does work well if u follow it by the book and do regular exercise, but a lot of the food it recommends is very high in saturates i mean come on...butter and high fat cheese have to be bad for you if ure eating them in large quantities, not only that but all the frying which is how most of the food is prepared.
Where you aware of the negative effects such as

*decreased bone mass
*constant craving for carbs
*damage to kidneys
*increased liklihood of bruisng
*vitiman D deficiency (even more with no vit supplements)
*weakening of the immune system
*diorrhea (however its spelt)
*immediate weight rebound for returning to higher carb levels

and thats if u follow it through perfectly.

Atkins also has no proof of the health benefits he claims, thats in 30 years of this diet being released. All it seems to commonly achieve is fast weight loss (water muscle and fat) and a rebound as soon as you give in to carbs again.


Not to slam in another bad point but i just googled ATKINS and a review on amazon of his book just kind of made number 3 on teh list, interesting if u read it...

Full Review
I just want to warn everyone about the negative effects this diet can have on a person's body. I too started this diet because it seemed like a quick easy fix. And it was....for awhile. I wanted to try this diet because I was about to get married. I started two months before my wedding, hoping to lose about 20 pounds. I ate like everyone told me, all meat, chicken, eggs, cheese and kept my veggie intake low. I quit drinking coffee and soda, which was a big task for me, and I also quit eating bread, potatoes, and fruit.

I was really cranky for the first few days and I felt really tired and weak. I just attributed this to my body "going through withdrawls". I continued to pack in the fat and starve from carbohydrates, waiting for my body to hit that magnificant ketoacidosis state. In theory, I thought this would work wonders. My body wouldn't have sugars to burn for energy, so it would be forced to burn fat to get the energy it needed. I even went out and bought the urine test strips that test for ketone bodies (the by-products of ketoacidosis) and sure enough, I had reached the stage.

I kept this up for about two weeks, and I lost about 8 pounds in the first week. I later realized this was all water weight though. In the next week I started to come down with the flu and a head cold. It gradually grew into the worst flu case I have ever had. I had a really hard time kicking it, and one night I got extremely sick and had to be taken to the emergency room. While watching TV I got extremely dizzy and I felt like I was going to pass out. I started to feel really cold all over and my roomate rushed me to the emergency room. I don't remember much, but she said my lips turned blue and I was pale. I remember being really scared, and my roomate was crying and yelling at me to keep me awake. They started me on an IV and did blood tests on me. My results were a combination of bad things, all resulting from a bad diet the doctor told me. He asked me what I had been eating recently, that my calcium and some vitamin levels (especially C and B12) were extremely low. I told him of the diet I was on and he told me then that he strongly discouraged this diet, but at least people need to take massive vitamin supplements while on it. I was given a variety of foods at the hospital and I went home the next day.

I would just highly warn anyone thinking about this diet about the negative effects it can have on your body!! BEWARE!!



Recommended
No

taken from here
http://www.epinions.com/well-review-30D3-371361C-396DACC6-prod4

make your own mind up but i prefer diet and exercise.
and nate im not digging you mate cos i know that you know your stuff. peace:)

NateDogg
06-08-2003, 07:31 AM
I know you are not digging me Alex. However, all of the points you have made, including the excerpt from Epinions, stem from people NOT using the diet correctly. Again, if ANYONE has low calcium levels and low levels of other vitamins, they can end up in the hospital.

Also, contrary to popular belief, except for the first two weeks, it is not a no carb diet...

Phase II: http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-61563.html

Phase III: http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-652756.html

Phase IV: http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-616901.html

Yes, I understand that they are all from the Atkin's website. However, I am posting them to provide factual information on how the Atkin's diet is to be carried out, to show that the diet is not 100% carb free.

I completely agree that it is not the best way for most people to go, especially active people like those on this board, but if you educate yourself on it, and do it correctly, it can do what it is advertised to do.

restless
06-08-2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by AlexBBbegginer

*decreased bone mass
*constant craving for carbs
*damage to kidneys
*increased liklihood of bruisng
*vitiman D deficiency (even more with no vit supplements)
*weakening of the immune system
*diorrhea (however its spelt)
*immediate weight rebound for returning to higher carb levels

and thats if u follow it through perfectly.



1- This ideia has already been discredited by recent reserach conducted for 3 years that showed an increase in bone mass resulting from a high protein diet with adequate calcium intake.

2- This happens for a while only.

3- You could say an aggravation to an pre-existing kidney disease, but there's not a single documented case of kidney disease attributed to a low carb diet.

4- ?????? What? It makes you bump against furniture or something?

5- On the contrary, vitamin D overdosing is more of a possibility than underdosing but even that is very unlikely, if not impossible to happen without extra supplementation.

6- Can you present any credible data to support this?

7- ummmmmmm, it's more constipation that is a possibility.

8- Not so. As long as you don't increase calories too much the only weight you'll gain is water wweight, not fat.

If you tell me that it's debatable whether or not keto diets really have any advantage over isocaloric diets of same caloric level then I might agree but even so, they still have an edge in appetite control that shouldn't be ignored. And plus at the light of recent research on calorie restriction and the possible negative effects of insulin in life expectancy maybe low carb diets even have some life extension properties, who knows? I'm curious to find out.

AlexBBbegginer
06-08-2003, 09:55 AM
Im only stating what ive read on the subject, and the experiences of ppl i know that have tried the diet BY the book.
The amount of bad outweighs the good in terms of studies and articles on the diet, i havent tried it personally i dont need too.
But the majority seem to be against it, and those points i stated where the most common side affects that came across, and yes diarrehoa (:confused: ) is very common despite the lack of fibre. That is how most ppl lose so much water and minerals.
I have my opinion on atkins diet not keto in general, atkins is as much a sell out as any media diet/supplement campaign, he has his own recipe books, supplements, vitimins, videos.
If i read something i get 2nd 3rd 4th opinions from different sites, articles and ppl in order to balance it out, plus i use some good old common sense.
Its not that im madly against anything other than losing/gaining weight the proper way, but i am highly skeptical of methods that seem so extreme, and produce positive results in test conditions but very rarely in the real world.(and i mean results where the fat STAYS off)
Id be more inclined to have faith if i saw galleries full of transformations of sedentary individuals lost 50lbs of pure fat simply by eating what most people would consider fatty(junk) food.
Surely such a high protein high fat diet would be optimal for a BBer (i have heard of the high fat anabolic diet- not read up on it yet tho) so why isnt there a segment of atkins BBers? they could gain muscle..lose fat..and lower LDL and TriG all at the same time.
Maybe 30 years isnt long enough for these tests or studies to produce the results it promises, im sure YES there are SOME people who have done very well on the diet, there are always exceptions but the majority simply yo-yo there weight and lose muscle.

restless-

some of the points i can answer , others are just commonly reported effects.
The last point was referring to people returning to normal food not just ppl adjusting the carb level in line with CCLL, all the ppl ive known to lose weight on this diet have got it all back in weeks.
Without supplements this diet does not work.
which is not how a proper diet should function, (vegans only have a few problems, with b12, so they can either drink alcohol, or take a pill for it) you would have many of the problems i listed, meat and dairy provide few of the necessary vitamins, nowadays it is adivised to use multi vits @ a higher dosage in order to overcome these problems. (which is kind of cheating really?)
One thing id like to ask if any of you know,

would the fact that less carbs are being eaten affect the rate @ which vitamins and minerals are absorbed due to lower levels of insulin produced(if any i cant find info about the effects of low carb on the pancreas)?

if this is the case then dairy products such as milk and cheese that provide the individuals calcium (that have about 30% absorption from dairy compared to leafy greens 65%) would be very ineffective, and could lower their absorption.

This might explain why ppl bruise more easily and have bone defeciency, platelets require B vitiamins, and bones need calcium and exercise to grow and strengthen.

Im keen to learn not fight, im sure theres truth in some of it but its more of a half diet (due to necessary supplements), a quick fix and something that has to be well calculated and precise to work properly as intended.

Not for Joe Average..

NateDogg
06-08-2003, 10:24 AM
So you have a problem with Atkin's because he had a keen business sense and was able to make money from his idea?

The Atkin's diet is often recommended for obese or very overweight individuals. Extreme situations often call for extreme actions.

If someone goes on Atkin's does it correctly...the whole thing, not just lose the weight then start eating like $hit again, I see no reason why they would not be successful in keeping the weight off. It's the people who re-introduce carbs and then go nuts eating them that gain the weight back.

I have heard of the high fat anabolic diet also. Does that not answer your own question? It may not be called Atkin's, but it's basically the same thing is it not?

AlexBBbegginer
06-08-2003, 11:22 AM
Ive not read about it yet, but its sposed to involve high levels of fat, which in turn increases testosterone production to sky high levels.

And im sure i can find more information facts figures and evidence to support that meat and saturate free diets such as vegan and vegetarian, are by far the best in terms of health, and weight control, and that doesnt include supplementing or banning food groups.(except meat of course:rolleyes: )

It just seems so hard to beleive that Atkins diet can be the total opposite of that in terms of method and practice and claim to have results AS healthy and benficial, i know vegetarianism is older than atkins and his diet, so that could be the reason why theres stacks of evidence to support its health benefits in real life circumstances, rather than controlled studies.


I have nothing against Atkins business intiative, but before you release such a complicated and possibly dangerous diet to the public, in the form of a book that anyone can buy or read.
You should emphasise the importance of following it correctly and even seeking a Dr or dieticans help.
Its social responsibility really, it should really be a form of prescription rather than a product, young girls say 14-15 have probably messed themselves up on this diet, what do they know about diet that there parents probably also dont know.
The cure to obesity is prevention, the public are not educated and 99% wont ever lift a finger to find out why they gain or lose weight the way they do.

Atkins theory has hit the mainstream and many individuals dont even buy the book, they just hear thats its about not eating carbs, and just eating meat and fat and losing lots of lbs!

Rise did you buy the book? did you read it cover to cover?
did you look for alternative ways to lose fat?
did you seek a dieticians advice?
did you read around subjects such as metabolism, diet, carbs, fats, protein??

Im not having a go anyone btw im just trying to get everyone to step back and get things into perspective.

The reason i responded to this post originally was because i saw that RISE has been losing more muscle and water than fat, i could sit back and keep my mouth shut, and let him carry on wasting away good muscle...
But id feel out of order for doing so,

maybe this whole debate has sparked him into reading up about health and fitness.

Fair enough the poor guy might be trying his best, but something hes doing isnt right, and i doubt he's got the knowledge on the subject yet, in order to pinpoint that inaccuracy, and rectify it to make positive progress.
And if hes got his dad on it, id hate for his dads health to suffer anymore due to incorrect use.

bradley
06-08-2003, 11:33 AM
AlexBBbegginer-

You are not offering any scientific evidence to back up these claims. Where are some of these articles and studies that you are referring to? Do you have anything to back up these claims other than opinions?

bradley
06-08-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by AlexBBbegginer
Ive not read about it yet, but its sposed to involve high levels of fat, which in turn increases testosterone production to sky high levels.

The Anabolic diet involves periods of ketogenic dieting (5 days with <30 g of carbs) followed by a carb load on the weekends. Basically just the Bodyopus diet with more calories since the goal of the Anabolic diet is to gain LBM where as diets like a CKD or Bodyopus are for losing bf. Although you could use the Anabolic diet to lose weight but that would just be a CKD basically.



its a nice theory Mr(:)) atkins, but cutting out 4 food groups veg, fruit, cereals,grains is depriving your body of

Atkins did not come up with ketogenic dieting. The original ketogenic diet was developed by a Dr. Wilder in 1921 to treat epilepsy in children.

rise
06-08-2003, 12:41 PM
Alex,
My sister is a doctor of internal medicine and owns her own practice. She recommends a low-carb diet for my father (diabetic) also so his blood sugar stays stable.

Yes I have read the book, and like I said before, the numbers I gave orginally are not correct since I do not yet know how to measure myself accurately. Nowhere in the Atkins book does it advocate high levels of fat or lack of vegetables. I've done lots of research before going on the Atkins diet, not only by reading his book, but by reading many people's experiences on newsgroups, forums, and websites. However, many people do not like the diet because it requires strong willpower (like every diet) and a large knowledge of the diet itself. I remember reading a story about someone's coworker who decided to "do atkins," and she just ended eating tons of lunch meat and drinking tons of soda...I guess she only assumed it was high-protein+fat?! Anyways, I can assure you I'm not one of those people. The reason I came here was to seek some help if I should switch to CKD or TKD since I will be lifting again, or if its not neccessary; or wait till I start intensive training then switch. Please don't assume I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to diet and nutrition.

Are you aware that there were two new studies in New England Journal of Medicine has validated ketogenic diets? Atkins isnt vindicated completely I admit, but the studies have warranted a longer in-depth analysis that will take five to seven years to determine the long-term effects.
here's a link to one of the many articles on this subject.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3044689.stm

and lighten up on the patronizing tone please. :rolleyes:

rise
06-08-2003, 12:44 PM
I'll copy/paste the important parts of the article for convienence of others :)

'No adverse effects'

After a year, the difference between the two groups was narrower.

The Atkins group had lost an average of 15.9 pounds compared to 9.7 pounds in the other group - but the researchers say this figure is not statistically significant as almost half of the participants had dropped out of the study by this point.

But those on the Atkins diet had seen a much greater increase in their levels of HDL or 'good' cholesterol.

They also saw greater falls in triglyceride levels - a type of fatty acid found in the blood.

Professor Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania, who worked on the study, said: "Widely recommending low carbohydrate approaches may be premature, but our initial findings suggest that such diets may not have the adverse effects that were anticipated.


Diet guru Robert Atkins, who died in April
"The real issue is whether low carbohydrate approaches help patients maintain their weight loss better than conventional approaches.

"It will also be important to determine whether the effects of the diet on cholesterol are the same during weight maintenance as they are they are during weight loss."

A second study of 130 patients carried out by researchers at the VA Medical Center in Philadelphia found a low carbohydrate diet was linked to greater weight loss and reductions in triglycerides and improvements in insulin sensitivity compared to a low-fat diet.

Fast weight loss

Catherine Collins of the British Dietetic Association said the initial stage of the Atkins diet involved cutting out virtually all carbohydrates - dieters are allowed to eat no more than 20 grams a day which must come in the form of salad greens and other vegetables.

No fruit, bread, pasta, grains or starchy vegetables are allowed during this period.

She said this, combined with the fact that dieters' bodies would then use up energy from carbohydrates, stored as glycogen in the liver and muscles, meaning people lost weight quickly.

Atkins dieters are later allowed to introduce small amounts of carbohydrates, but Ms Collins said: "If people know they are going to be checked, they could go back to this more intense diet so they could lose weight quickly."

But she said the finding on HDL cholesterol was interesting.

She added: "On the face of it, this study suggests the Atkins diet isn't that bad, but more research is certainly needed."

The research is published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AlexBBbegginer
06-08-2003, 12:48 PM
Im not a scientist, and i as ive explained i was just pointing out to RISE that he was doing losing too much muscle.

Im happy to show u some of the links that i read, i obviously dont have all of them but these are probably some of the more detailed 1's.

http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/57/66038.htm
this article refers to the diet, i think its about the results of last novembers study on the Atkins diet which was funded by Atkins himself, (if u dont beleive me read this article which clarifies that http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/11/19/otsc.atkins.diet/ i feel it is necessary to point this out for obvious reasons)
And also that i cant find any clear data produced by his results, it just states that ppl lost more lbs on his diet than on AHA diets, no breakdown of muscle,water,fat.
It shows also the cholesteral levels improving and beating the AHA group. But then i stumbled across this....

The important exerpt is this part since it highlights another key point about cholesterol levels improving...


But the diet still isn't balanced, says the American Heart Association, troubled by implications that it's changed its position on Atkins since the November meeting. (It hasn't.) "A high intake of saturated fats over time raises great concern about increased cardiovascular risk; the study did not follow participants long enough to evaluate this," the AHA said in a release.


So why did "bad cholesterol" levels go down for Atkins dieters in the studies?


"Any time people lose weight by any means, cholesterol goes down," :study:

says Neal Barnard, MD, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and a leading Atkins critic. "But the idea that Atkins is a cholesterol-lowering diet -- the evidence on that is at best very mixed."


Plus, slashing carbs and gulping fat may be dangerous to more than just your heart health. Barnard points to research recently published in the American Journal of Kidney Disease, based on studies of 10 healthy people put on the Atkins diet. "Because their focus is kidney disease, they wanted to look at calcium loss. It was awful: On the induction diet, calcium losses were 65% above normal, and even on the more moderate maintenance diet, calcium losses averaged 55% above normal," Barnard says. "Osteoporosis is a bad enough problem as it is. If you do something that increases calcium losses, you're just asking for hip fractures."


So for now, the jury's still out on Atkins. "If it turns out that the diet is safe and effective, maybe we have something to learn from it," says Foster. "But we just don't know enough about it yet."


Published Dec. 26, 2002.

As you can see there is clearly more than meets the eye,
there is a plan for a 5 year study which if it isnt funded by atkins himself (and i think it is, but part paid by a grant) id be very interested to see the results.


http://patrifriedman.com/writing/journal/expat/75ketosis.html

this is where i found some negative aspects of atkins and ketosis which ill paste for ppl who dont want to read it all...

the page however has links to explain the scientific reasons why the problems occour im not an expert and i dont pretend to be, so if u disagree plz email the bloke who wrote it not me!


Bad things about ketosis:

ketosis increases likelihood of bruising.

fasting decreases immune function (this study suggests that the first study applies to atkins-induced ketosis).

ketosis does bad things to the kidneys.

Some evidence that ketosis in diabetics is identical to ketosis in normal individuals (although perhaps more extreme).

Low-carb is better than no-carb ("Although some workers use VLCD consisting only of protein, the author prefers those also containing carbohydrate because they prevent excessive ketosis, hyperuricemia, diuresis, electrolyte loss, re-feeding oedema, and may improve muscular endurance").

ketosis causes vitamin D deficiency and decreased bone mass.

From this evidence we can see that Atkins portrayal of "BDK" as totally harmless is a distortion of the truth. Because ketosis usually occurs in the context of DKA, he can blame all the ill effects on the hyperglycemia & extremeness of the ketosis. These are likely responsible for the acute effects, but ketosis is not harmless. It is unclear exactly what the health risks of long-term mild chronic ketosis is, but we can see that there are some, although they appear fairly mild. BDK is thus a loaded term, and in my opinion this reflects poorly on Dr. Atkins and his reliability.



And finally another link that doubles up some of the points i made, and i really can find more articles if i start a fresh search which will triple and quadruple these points or similar.

http://www.leonardfitness.com/atkinsdiet.htm

For me im not convinced that atkins works as wonderfully as he claims and these against articles and my own sense of judgement say its too risky to even recommend to a friend, id rather some1 made gains by good old fashioned effort.

I hope im out of the firing line now, like i said i wont type anything i havent read and double checked.
But sometimes 95% of everything you read can be BS and the 5% can be totally accurate. Im trying to learn as well, and i find all this fascinating.

restless
06-08-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by AlexBBbegginer
Ive not read about it yet, but its sposed to involve high levels of fat, which in turn increases testosterone production to sky high levels.

And im sure i can find more information facts figures and evidence to support that meat and saturate free diets such as vegan and vegetarian, are by far the best in terms of health, and weight control, and that doesnt include supplementing or banning food groups.(except meat of course:rolleyes: )

Vegetarian diets are not better in terms of health than a properly constructed meat based diet.



It just seems so hard to beleive that Atkins diet can be the total opposite of that in terms of method and practice and claim to have results AS healthy and benficial, i know vegetarianism is older than atkins and his diet, so that could be the reason why theres stacks of evidence to support its health benefits in real life circumstances, rather than controlled studies.


Excuse me? Low carb diets have been around for a few million years and mankind evolved in a meat based diet.








Im not having a go anyone btw im just trying to get everyone to step back and get things into perspective.


Which perpective, yours? I rather use science but thanks anyway.


The reason i responded to this post originally was because i saw that RISE has been losing more muscle and water than fat, i could sit back and keep my mouth shut, and let him carry on wasting away good muscle...
But id feel out of order for doing so,


Keto diets even have a sligh muscle sparing effect, for your information....


maybe this whole debate has sparked him into reading up about health and fitness.


Hopefully.

AlexBBbegginer
06-08-2003, 03:21 PM
Message to Rise,
hey man im not patronising you.
But when i saw your 1st post it just seemed like you didnt understand your results, i mean when i worked it out, u only really acheived a 5lb loss in fat.
Its great to say 'wow ive lost 16lbs' but sooooo many people just dont have a clue what they have really done.
I felt i should point it out to you, other ppl have hammered me over every detail of keto (which i really havent looked @ until today) and atkins becasue of it.
When all i was really concerned about, and what other ppl should have noticed too..
was that your diet wasnt working properly.
When i asked those Q's about reading the book and around the subject i notice your reply stated...
'Yes i have read the book...' and that youd read forums etc
this is all very well if your looking for info on the diet, but i still dont know if youve begun to learn how your body REALLY works,
its a huge study, ive been reading everything i can for over 8 months now and im still a NEWB when it comes down to it.
But the basics are set in stone, and they are dependable, so if you dont know them, go read!
If you want to get lean, you want to keep as much muscle as possible, it burns many more cals than fat per day.
If your only 158lbs i dont see a need for you to use that type of diet (this is just my opinion, you can use it them if u like) your choice is really to cut or to bulk.
Bulk for that extra mass and use weights, and then do cardio such as HIIT to cut the fat and improve your resp system and overall fitness.
Good luck to you and i hope ure dads situation improves and all.
;)

* goes off to eat....mmmmm fish...:drooling:

AlexBBbegginer
06-08-2003, 03:47 PM
Restless-

im sure u have it in for me....:(

im starting to wish i kept my mouth shut now...

My long term plan after gaining mass is to go vegetarian,
short term ill stick to meat for protein, but i have read and researched vegetarian diets before, and seen statistics from several sources that all indicate great benefits over meat.

I refuse to go into mass detail and pull out 10 web pages and force you to read it all, but trust me im not Mr. Fullof S***, ask some vegetarians or vegans about the health benefits.

If meat based diet really is the best, then please could you show me why with some nice graphs, figures etc
im open minded and i like to hear different views, i realise that everything to do with health is just a TOTAL debate and nothing and everything is the best and worst.

Rise's diet lost him more LBM than fat, can we plz agree on this??
im keeping out of keto its not my subject, but i can see rises results are not good.

Man is an omnivore btw and we have lived off whatever was around to eat, not just exclusively meat or veg.

Im spent for today...

restless
06-08-2003, 04:40 PM
Listen, don't get the ideia that I'm on a personal quest to discredit you or something like that, but when goes around making claims one better have something to support them otherwise you risk going through what you just went through.

About vegetarian and meat based diets, do you think it's fair to lump all meat diets in the same bag? Would it be fair for me to say that all vegetarian diets all life treathening just because some crazy fools go on a fruit only diet untill they develop some serious anemia and general mal nutrition?

No, it wouldn't be fair would it? Then why are you doing just that with meat based diets? The reason you see vegetarian diets performing better in some health indicators is not because meat is bad for your health but because people on the SAD usually eat crap all day long, trans and hidrogenated fatty acids, sugary crap, low omega 3 intake, lack of some vitamins, high phosphorous intake, sedentarism, etc etc....

I'll put something like a paleo diet against any vegetarian diet any day and I'd bet paleo would came out a lot better.

Oh, and I've been a vegetarian for a few years. I had the sex drive and body hair of 9 year old so guess what it does to your testosterone levels....

Anyway, a vegetarian diet only means more trouble trying to get proper nutrient intake for less than optimal food choices, high phytate due to high whole grain intake messes up many minerals absorption, low non heme iron and subsequent low iron stores (demonstrated in vegetarians despite adequate non heme iron intake), low plasma taurine levels, low B-12 levels,etc etc....

If you chose to eliminate a food group you evolved on gotta be ready to pay some price....

bradley
06-08-2003, 05:14 PM
A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.

University of Cincinnati and Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu

Untested alternative weight loss diets, such as very low carbohydrate diets, have unsubstantiated efficacy and the potential to adversely affect cardiovascular risk factors. Therefore, we designed a randomized, controlled trial to determine the effects of a very low carbohydrate diet on body composition and cardiovascular risk factors. Subjects were randomized to 6 months of either an ad libitum very low carbohydrate diet or a calorie-restricted diet with 30% of the calories as fat. Anthropometric and metabolic measures were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Fifty-three healthy, obese female volunteers (mean body mass index, 33.6 +/- 0.3 kg/m(2)) were randomized; 42 (79%) completed the trial. Women on both diets reduced calorie consumption by comparable amounts at 3 and 6 months. The very low carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 1.0 kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 +/- 0.67 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.75 kg; P < 0.01) than the low fat diet group. Mean levels of blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and insulin were within normal ranges in both groups at baseline. Although all of these parameters improved over the course of the study, there were no differences observed between the two diet groups at 3 or 6 months. beta- Hydroxybutyrate increased significantly in the very low carbohydrate group at 3 months (P = 0.001). Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 12679447 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program.

Westman EC, Yancy WS, Edman JS, Tomlin KF, Perkins CE.

Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, 2200 West Main Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA. ewestman@duke.edu

To determine the effect of a 6-month very low carbohydrate diet program on body weight and other metabolic parameters.Fifty-one overweight or obese healthy volunteers who wanted to lose weight were placed on a very low carbohydrate diet (<25 g/d), with no limit on caloric intake. They also received nutritional supplementation and recommendations about exercise, and attended group meetings at a research clinic. The outcomes were body weight, body mass index, percentage of body fat (estimated by skinfold thickness), serum chemistry and lipid values, 24-hour urine measurements, and subjective adverse effects.Forty-one (80%) of the 51 subjects attended visits through 6 months. In these subjects, the mean (+/- SD) body weight decreased 10.3% +/- 5.9% (P <0.001) from baseline to 6 months (body weight reduction of 9.0 +/- 5.3 kg and body mass index reduction of 3.2 +/- 1.9 kg/m(2)). The mean percentage of body weight that was fat decreased 2.9% +/- 3.2% from baseline to 6 months (P <0.001). The mean serum bicarbonate level decreased 2 +/- 2.4 mmol/L (P <0.001) and blood urea nitrogen level increased 2 +/- 4 mg/dL (P <0.001). Serum total cholesterol level decreased 11 +/- 26 mg/dL (P = 0.006), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 10 +/- 25 mg/dL (P = 0.01), triglyceride level decreased 56 +/- 45 mg/dL (P <0.001), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level increased 10 +/- 8 mg/dL (P <0.001), and the cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio decreased 0.9 +/- 0.6 units (P <0.001). There were no serious adverse effects, but the possibility of adverse effects in the 10 subjects who did not adhere to the program cannot be eliminated.A very low carbohydrate diet program led to sustained weight loss during a 6-month period. Further controlled research is warranted.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial

PMID: 12106620 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

bradley
06-08-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by AlexBBbegginer
Rise's diet lost him more LBM than fat, can we plz agree on this??


Actually he posted that the original numbers were not accurate so there is really no way of knowing if he lost more LBM than fat.

I agree that all the questions have not been answered concerning the ketogenic diet, but from the studies and information that is available now I think it is safe to say that the ketogenic diet can be a safe way to lose weight in the short term. The long term safety of the ketogenic diet is more of an issue IMO.

bradley
06-08-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by rise
The reason I came here was to seek some help if I should switch to CKD or TKD since I will be lifting again, or if its not neccessary; or wait till I start intensive training then switch.

If you are following a weight training program then yes I would recommend switching to either a CKD or TKD, or a combination of the two.

rise
06-08-2003, 05:58 PM
Thanks bradley!

Alex, one I learn how to accurately measure my LBM and body fat % :read: , I'll let you know how my progress goes! :thumbup:
You can read about many member's journeys into keto in the online journal section of this site! its inspiring! ;)

bradley
06-08-2003, 06:06 PM
The carb load that is part of the CKD diet has benefits in that it refills lost muscle glycogen due to training and also has metabolic benefits as well when you get down to the lower bf%'s (<15%).

If you decide to go with a TKD over a CKD I would recommend at least incorporating a periodic refeed when you get around the 15% bf mark. Hence the reason I recommended a combination of the two:)

rise
06-08-2003, 11:30 PM
stumbled upon another good site
http://www.low-carb-diet-safety.com/

AlexBBbegginer
06-09-2003, 11:58 AM
Ive never seen atkins diet as anything other than a short term fix myself, hence why i think of it as a fad diet.
I personally dont think it would work long term, i agree it needs independant long term testing on a wide group of individuals.
I mean the last big test last year was conducted with Atkins funding, and would you believe it?? it all came out good...
beating low fat diets and fitness...

Ive also heard the tabacco giant, that recently published its own results about passive smoking...NO REAL RISK.

These are both businesses dealing with health and so therefore i am skeptical about the results that they publish, even more since its their funding that makes these discoveries.

anyway this mackeral is too gorgeous.. i must eat on!

Monster Muscle
06-09-2003, 03:31 PM

restless
06-09-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by AlexBBbegginer
Ive never seen atkins diet as anything other than a short term fix myself, hence why i think of it as a fad diet.
I personally dont think it would work long term, i agree it needs independant long term testing on a wide group of individuals.
I mean the last big test last year was conducted with Atkins funding, and would you believe it?? it all came out good...
beating low fat diets and fitness...

Ive also heard the tabacco giant, that recently published its own results about passive smoking...NO REAL RISK.

These are both businesses dealing with health and so therefore i am skeptical about the results that they publish, even more since its their funding that makes these discoveries.

anyway this mackeral is too gorgeous.. i must eat on!

Not fair comparing the tobacco industry to Atkins, they are making a profit out of the misery of millions and Atkins helps a lot of people.

I'll tell you this much, if keto was dangerous at ALL then the enuit wouldn't have survived to this day without any of the modern man diseases. This argument gets old. I can get you testimonials of people that have been on Atkins for up to 7 years and they've better health than most of the regular population. Most vegetarians I know are a complete wreck at the verge of anemia so I suspect you have your beliefs a bit mixed up.

AlexBBbegginer
06-09-2003, 04:02 PM
My mum personally works with a lifelong vegetarian, and hes 50 now.
Hes by far the strongest and healthiest person shes ever met, there are also numerous lifelong vegetarian BBers who are huge
(im not a big fan of BBers and i dont really follow individuals etc) and one is now 77 and still breaking records.

I guess were both right and at the same time wrong, since theres no agreement anywhere in subjects such as BBing. you can show me data to support your arguement but i can do just the same to you.

Im not here to argue im also not stupid enough to believe there is a right or wrong answer. Just because im newer doesnt mean im wrong either.

No-one really knows.

Im ending my part in this topic since it is pointless because its going beyond a debate.

restless
06-09-2003, 04:10 PM
No, the problem is this, although some of my dumbass vegetarian friends can't feed themselves proeperly doesn't make me go around spreading half truths and making unsubstanciated claims about the evil vegetarian diets. A vegetarian diet can be fine, although in mty personal opinion it's a far from optimal choice, and the Atkins diet is fine, as long as you know what you're doing. There's research to support it and there are a few million years of evolution on meat based diets to support any low carb/moderate or no carb aproach.

I'm sorry but you just don't have a case. I too have once been a vegetarian, before I started researching into nutrition deeply....