The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 84
  1. #1
    Banned HFWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1

    The Atkins diet - Possible Health Risk - Is really this diet safe?

    Is really this diet safe ?

    People which are following Atkins diet eat large amounts of protein and fat.

    Doctors from New York University wrote in The Lancet journal of a 40-year-old woman who developed a dangerous condition called ketoacidosis, a dangerous buildup of acids called ketones in the blood which can lead to patients falling into a coma.

    Ketones are produced in the liver when insulin levels fall due to starvation or diabetes.

    "Our patient had an underlying ketosis caused by the Atkins diet ..."

    Read the entire article: here
    Last edited by Paul Stagg; 03-19-2006 at 03:58 PM.

  2.    Support Wannabebig and use AtLarge Nutrition Supplements!


  3. #2
    SFW! drew's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    8,156
    I highly doubt she was on the Atkins diet. More likely she was on the ******kins diet. People think that Atkins is just eating pounds and pounds of bacon and cheese and no carbs whatsoever. I would venture to say this woman never read the book at all.

    (I'm not saying I'm a fan of the Atkins diet, but it's not as bad as people think it is. The effect it's had on society in general is the problem.)

    Stats: Age: 34 Weight: 205 Height: 5'6"
    Gym PRs: Squat:635 Bench:560 Deadlift:495
    Meet PRs: Squat:575 Bench:525 Deadlift:510 Total: 1605@220

  4. #3
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    41
    i tried that diet a couple of years back. in two weeks, i managed to lose 20 pounds. it was tough though because you are very restricted on what you can eat, and im not a big fan of salads. however, after those two weeks i felt 20lbs was enough and went back to normal, and within 1-2 weeks i was back to my original weight. a couple of months later i just started watching what i eat, like cutting out sugar filled junk foods and adjusted my portion size. i lost 50lbs doing this within a years time and it has stayed off.

  5. #4
    Senior Member TheGimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by drew
    I highly doubt she was on the Atkins diet. More likely she was on the ******kins diet. People think that Atkins is just eating pounds and pounds of bacon and cheese and no carbs whatsoever. I would venture to say this woman never read the book at all.
    According to the version I read in my morning paper, she was "living solely on meat, cheese and salads" (emphasis mine). Additionally she took "recommended precautions, includings using vitamins and other supplements marketed by Atkins".

  6. #5
    SFW! drew's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    8,156
    THe stuff with the Atkins name on it is just corporate America buying the name and slapping it on everything.

    Stats: Age: 34 Weight: 205 Height: 5'6"
    Gym PRs: Squat:635 Bench:560 Deadlift:495
    Meet PRs: Squat:575 Bench:525 Deadlift:510 Total: 1605@220

  7. #6
    260(-62) from 193 from 275
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Oshawa-->Toronto
    Posts
    0
    The bottom line is you won't lose fat faster than any other diet at the same amount of calories.

    So don't make it more difficult than it really is. Use your cals to eat filling foods that you like.
    Last edited by Holto; 03-17-2006 at 10:40 AM.

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Holto
    The bottom line is you won't lose fat faster than any other diet at the same amount of calories.

    So don't make it more difficult than it really is. Use your cals to eat filling foods that you like.
    hmm, i dont see how, i ate loads on the Atkinds diet, like 2 eggs, 2 sausages and bacon for breakfast, sometiems a steak, a pack of 6 chicken legs during the day and a few packs of sliced cheese, then at nite id usually have more steak or whatever there was going. I lost 56lbs in about 4 months, i mustve been eating around 4000 cals a day easily. Although i came off the diet and put it all back on within about 6 months
    23 yo 6 2", 258lbs

    Feb' 06......................................Mar' 06......july 06
    bench 270lb x 1..........................275x3........315x4
    deadlift 260lb x 1........................275x1........418x1
    db shoulder press 88x3................94x3..........100x7
    atf squat - ...............................................308x5

  9. #8
    260(-62) from 193 from 275
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Oshawa-->Toronto
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BaggedE30
    hmm, i dont see how

    Here is how...


    Quote Originally Posted by BaggedE30
    I must've been eating around 4000 cals a day easily
    Bingo.

    You weren't counting cals and therefore have no idea.

    Try it with counting cals you will see the principle of energy balance is innescapable.

    Atkins dieters will lose more weight, not fat. You lose a tremendous amount of water when low carbing. It's also very easy to lose bone. The water weight returns as evidenced in your particular case.
    Last edited by Holto; 03-17-2006 at 10:50 AM.

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Holto
    Here is how...




    Bingo.

    You weren't counting cals and therefore have no idea.

    Try it with counting cals you will see the principle of energy balance is innescapable.

    Atkins dieters will lose more weight, not fat. You lose a tremendous amount of water when low carbing. It's also very easy to lose bone. The water weight returns as evidenced in your particular case.
    you can lose bone? my teeth started to crack while on it, thats the main reason i came off of it
    23 yo 6 2", 258lbs

    Feb' 06......................................Mar' 06......july 06
    bench 270lb x 1..........................275x3........315x4
    deadlift 260lb x 1........................275x1........418x1
    db shoulder press 88x3................94x3..........100x7
    atf squat - ...............................................308x5

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Holto
    Here is how...




    Bingo.

    You weren't counting cals and therefore have no idea.

    Try it with counting cals you will see the principle of energy balance is innescapable.

    Atkins dieters will lose more weight, not fat. You lose a tremendous amount of water when low carbing. It's also very easy to lose bone. The water weight returns as evidenced in your particular case.
    i didnt lose just water, i lost an incredible amount of bodyfat. Peoples jaws dropped who hadnt seen me in a few months
    23 yo 6 2", 258lbs

    Feb' 06......................................Mar' 06......july 06
    bench 270lb x 1..........................275x3........315x4
    deadlift 260lb x 1........................275x1........418x1
    db shoulder press 88x3................94x3..........100x7
    atf squat - ...............................................308x5

  12. #11
    DeaTH BeFoRe WeaKNeSs sCaRz*Of*PaiN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    My Head
    Posts
    6,112
    It'll change the acidity of your blood, which can lead to bad things.
    "The only easy day was yesterday."

  13. #12
    260(-62) from 193 from 275
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Oshawa-->Toronto
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BaggedE30
    i didnt lose just water, i lost an incredible amount of bodyfat. Peoples jaws dropped who hadnt seen me in a few months
    I'm not saying you did. I'm saying on equal net cals and any other type of diet the difference would be water weight. Both diets would result in the same amount of fat lost.

  14. #13
    DeaTH BeFoRe WeaKNeSs sCaRz*Of*PaiN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    My Head
    Posts
    6,112
    When you're on Atkins, you'll lose a lot of fat during the early part of the diet...and then it'll slow down and level off. I've read studies showing two people. One on a regular diet and one on the Atkins diet. The level of fat loss eventually became equal after a certain period of time. There are also less risks with a normal diet + caloric manipulation + exercise. When your body starts going into ketoacidosis, some bad things can start happening. You generally want the acidity of your blood to remain the same.
    "The only easy day was yesterday."

  15. #14
    Iced Earth - Stormrider ArchAngel777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,661
    Macro-nutrients are here for a reason. Anytime your ratio is set in a ridiculous manner, like 5% carbs, 47.5% protein and 47.5% fat over a long period of time, I believe, strongly, that there will be some serious health issues. Carbs exist for a reason, same with protein and fat. You can modifiy the ratios safely to a certain extent, but removing fat complete is a bad idea... Same with carbs, to remove them completely and the same with protein.

    People need to remember that all three are essential for well being.
    Last edited by ArchAngel777; 03-17-2006 at 01:20 PM.

  16. #15
    Senior Member TheGimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by ArchAngel777
    People need to remember that all three are essential for well being.
    Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.

  17. #16
    Just watch me ... Built's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGimp
    Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.
    Yep.

    When I was fat and struggling with my weight and my health, I tried a LOT of things - lowfat, cardio classes, took up jogging, tried diet pills; I had the best success with Atkins -I lost most of the weight, it was effortless, a whole pile of other health problems just went away (no more high cholesterol, migraines, or type II diabetes meds) and ... I READ THE BOOK.

    People who don't read the book and THINK they're "doing Atkins", usually aren't.

    Ketoacidosis isn't the same thing as ketosis. And my bone density tests out as off the chart for a woman of twenty! Hooray for heavy pieces of iron.

    The Atkins diet isn't the "don't eat anything but bacon" diet. I ate more vegetables on Atkins than most vegetarians I know. Anything I'd usually eat on bread, rice, noodles, or with potatoes I'd eat with romaine, cabbage, green beans or broccoli.

  18. #17
    DeaTH BeFoRe WeaKNeSs sCaRz*Of*PaiN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    My Head
    Posts
    6,112
    Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.
    This species is 60,000+ years old. No evolution occurred during that time. That doesn't even make sense.


    People who don't read the book and THINK they're "doing Atkins", usually aren't.
    You're right.


    Ketoacidosis isn't the same thing as ketosis. And my bone density tests out as off the chart for a woman of twenty! Hooray for heavy pieces of iron.
    I didn't say it was. Ketoacidosis is a big NO NO.


    The Atkins diet isn't the "don't eat anything but bacon" diet. I ate more vegetables on Atkins than most vegetarians I know. Anything I'd usually eat on bread, rice, noodles, or with potatoes I'd eat with romaine, cabbage, green beans or broccoli.
    I started reading the book a while back and it seems a LOT of people do the diet wrong. The diet does, in fact, allow carbs...considerably more than most people probably think.

    Ugh...if people just took the time to read the book it would save them oodles of trouble. My morbidly obese neighbor (looks to be somewhere around 350-400 pounds) came over for dinner and we were having pasta and french bread. He said "Oh, I can't have that I'm cutting out bread". I was like...WTF? I think that's ALL he was doing was not eating bread and that was his diet. I think he's heavier now than when I last saw him. Carbs are evil!!! MUST NOT EVER EAT THEM!! People think that's Atkins.
    Last edited by sCaRz*Of*PaiN; 03-17-2006 at 05:54 PM.
    "The only easy day was yesterday."

  19. #18
    Just watch me ... Built's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGimp
    Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.
    Quote Originally Posted by sCaRz*Of*PaiN
    This species is 60,000+ years old. No evolution occurred during that time. That doesn't even make sense.
    Actually, I think that was the point TheGimp was making - we evolved long before we became farmers. We now eat a VERY different diet than we were, ah, "designed" for.

    Humans are a robust design - we can tolerate a LOT of stuff that isn't good for us - case in point, smoking - but it doesn't mean these things are optimal.

    The carb thing seems to vary TREMENDOUSLY from person to person. You really have to find your own levels. And these levels appear to be able to change over time - I can't eat the amount of starch I did when I was a skinny teenager, but I can eat a LOT more than I could four years ago.

    I'm thinking it's because I'm more muscular now. They don't mess me up like they used to. But I still can't go much higher than about 200-250g of carb in a day without being freakishly hungry, and that's on a leg day. Most days for me are between 90-200g, depending if it's a training day or not.

    You just have to fiddle with it to find what works with your body and your training.

    And if you decide to do an extreme diet like Atkins or PSMF, for the love of GOD, buy the book!

  20. #19
    Senior Member TheGimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by sCaRz*Of*PaiN
    This species is 60,000+ years old. No evolution occurred during that time. That doesn't even make sense.
    My knowledge of anthropology is not extensive but the point, as Built says, is that the period of time we have been farmers is insignificant in evolutionary terms.

  21. #20
    Senior Member TheGimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,156
    Just to hammer the point home: gluconeogenesis means we can derive glucose from protien.

  22. #21
    DeaTH BeFoRe WeaKNeSs sCaRz*Of*PaiN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    My Head
    Posts
    6,112
    But how do you know what our species was doing 60,000+ years ago? That's one of those theories that is inconclusive. Something drawn from bits and piecs of vague findings. Plant...fruits...vegetables...have certainly been around longer than 60,000+ years.


    Just to hammer the point home: gluconeogenesis means we can derive glucose from protien.
    Yes, of course.


    The carb thing seems to vary TREMENDOUSLY from person to person. You really have to find your own levels. And these levels appear to be able to change over time - I can't eat the amount of starch I did when I was a skinny teenager, but I can eat a LOT more than I could four years ago.
    I, for one, feel very sick when I don't eat enough carbs. But I agree that it can vary from person to person.
    "The only easy day was yesterday."

  23. #22
    Iced Earth - Stormrider ArchAngel777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGimp
    Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.
    I don't share the same world view, therefore, I don't come to the same conclusion on you as this. Since I believe we were created, and that food as it occours naturally today is how we are supposed to eat. Therefore, since carbs exist in plants and nature, I consider them essential part of our diet. BTW, before you attack my world view (not saying you will, but many will) you can't prove evolution, or the stages of it, since none of us were there for that! Not going to get involved in religion though. Just giving you my perspective on how I feel about carbs.
    Last edited by ArchAngel777; 03-17-2006 at 06:25 PM.

  24. #23
    Iced Earth - Stormrider ArchAngel777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Built
    Actually, I think that was the point TheGimp was making - we evolved long before we became farmers. We now eat a VERY different diet than we were, ah, "designed" for.
    That doesn't make sense. According to that theory, then eating 0 carbs is optimal for everyone... Have you tried eating 0 carbs? Actually, if we were designed to run on P + F only, instead of C, then no one should have a problem getting rid of the carbs in their diet and sticking to 100% P + F.

    additionally, you mention the term "design", as in we were designed for something and something wasn't designed for us? It could be the other way around. Perhaps according to evolution, carbs were designed for us and that is why they are here... Either way, getting into evolutionary stuff is futile, since no one was here during these times and no one really knows.
    Last edited by ArchAngel777; 03-17-2006 at 06:33 PM.

  25. #24
    Pumping Iron @ Villy!
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    738
    What is the max ammount of carbohydrates that one can ingest while on the Atkins diet?
    "Geneing Leans Green"

  26. #25
    DeaTH BeFoRe WeaKNeSs sCaRz*Of*PaiN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    My Head
    Posts
    6,112
    What is the max ammount of carbohydrates that one can ingest while on the Atkins diet?
    It's completely dependent upon the individual.
    "The only easy day was yesterday."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •