16. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 12:48 pm PDT

EAT EAT EAT EAT EAT EAT EAT EAT THATS WHAT GETS U

Report Abuse

17. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 2:39 pm PDT

I have been chubby since a kid and beating weight gain was a battle for me. It was maybe for maybe two years now that I have maintained a weight that was considered underweight and i just tried the atkins diet to test it out. At first it was effective then I noticed that after a few days i reached a platueu and then gain weight inspite the fact that i consumed the right # or low carb requirement. Now, I have been very confused on which diet to follow since im on and off the atkins diet and i have gained 10 pounds easily. I am having a hard time losing it. By the way, since I was underweight I have been amennorhea. Is this diet related?

Report Abuse

18. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 4:32 pm PDT

What is a safe way to curb your appetite?

Report Abuse

19. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 2:29 pm PDT

From what I've read ( Dr. Atkins book) he offers a series of cosecutive diets. The drastic diet is only for two weeks to begin ketosis and quick weight loss and then you are told to add in carb-foods (especially the complex types) in subsequent diets to find your individual level of carbs(what you need for energy that can be burn-off daily through activity) to insure that not to much excess is stored as fat. He's aiming for a life time balanced diet. It's not- 'eat a lot of fat and protein and no carbs'. We all know flavor is in the fat and it appeals to us that you can enjoy food while you diet. It worked for me. I often wondered why the body would store so much fat and not retrieve it. Why low fat diets never seem to work. Yet the carb Industry admitts that sugar, at least, is a problem(by eliminating it in drinks then calling them "diet"products) The FDA never warns of the over-use of carbohydrates and their link to diabetes,that I've ever seen. I wonder why? Curious

Report Abuse

20. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 2:45 pm PDT

Far too often, and this article is an example, people start out talking about a "low carb diet" and immediatly shift to a calling that same diet a "high fat diet" as if the two were synonomis. Far too often, and this article is an example, people start out talking about a "low carb diet" and immediately shift to a calling that same diet a "high fat diet" as if the two were synonymous. If an individual keeps carbs low, protein high and SATURATED fats low they stand a good chance to burn STORED fat (i.e., loose fat weight, not muscle weight). Imagine, (and I have done more than just imagine) a diet that was low carb, high protein – with a high variety of different proteins - and low in saturated fat AND you calorie counted to keep the over all calories no greater than 15% to 20% less than your BMR?? It works! Loosing weight is, or should be a temporary thing, then a diet should focus on maintenance (and/or performance enhancement). What ever happened to the "ZONE"?!?, wasn't that the diet for this maintain step?

Report Abuse

21. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 2:50 pm PDT

Far too often, and this article is an example, people start out talking about a "low carb diet" and immediately shift to a calling that same diet a "high fat diet" as if the two were synonymous. If an individual keeps carbs low, protein high and SATURATED fats low they stand a good chance to burn STORED fat (i.e., loose fat weight, not muscle weight). Imagine, (and I have done more than just imagine) a diet that was low carb, high protein – with a high variety of different proteins - and low in saturated fat AND you calorie counted to keep the over all calories no greater than 15% to 20% less than your BMR?? It works! Loosing weight is, or should be a temporary thing, then a diet should focus on maintenance (and/or performance enhancement). What ever happened to the "ZONE"?!?, wasn't that the diet for this maintain step?

Report Abuse

22. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 2:53 pm PDT

The Zone Diet is very much a lifetime diet once one understands it. The effort and expense of preparing good foods is lessened with practice, and good habits replace bad. Good reading, and the "Zone" books go to the heart of metabolic disfunction. I've been using their approach for 9 years now and have seen nothing to invalidate it. Most other diets have since moved in this direction. Moderating starchy/sugary carbs really helps with energy levels and is more than worth the effort.

Report Abuse

23. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 3:41 pm PDT

Go back to comments on South Beach, I've heard the most favorable reports on this. I've read the text and checked the suggested menu, seems most reasonable.

Report Abuse

24. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 4:36 pm PDT

I cannot speak for everyone, but I would just like to add that it's about balance..!! Look, just watch the fat intake, whatch the carb intake and get some cardio in. I've personally gone from 282 lbs. down to 202. I've found that at 6'1" im most comfortable around 215 to 220. I didn't do anything except follow the advice of my son, who is a personal trainer. I cut back a bit, picked up the exercise a bit, which i started out by just walking 30 mins. a day, three days a week, and stayed committed to it. Hey i eat bbq potato chips....but not every day and not the whole bag. Just use good judgement, and stay away from Mickey D's....hey, a calorie is a calorie, cut the calories a bit, and pick up the exercise...thats the only diet plan you'll ever need. Just stick to it.

Report Abuse

25. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 4:46 pm PDT

The term “fad diet” doesn’t do much justice to a proper low-carb lifestyle. Reducing your intake of carbohydrates doesn’t equate to stuffing your stomach with pork rinds and steak. Thanks to the soaring popularity of a low carb lifestyle, many well known brands are profiting from the trend, and making it easier for those cutting carbs to do so in a healthy fashion. Low-carb yogurt, whole grain reduced carb breads, light juice drinks (that do contain some juice), fish, grilled chicken, salads prepared with spinach and romaine; the list goes on and on. It is true, as with any other diet, that the safety of living low-carb cannot be determined without long term studies. To touch on the issue of calcium loss, I believe that people tend to over look soy as a welcome alternative to milk. Soy products in general provide so many benefits (including taste!), but without all the “bad” fats and cholesterol we’re used to in other snack items. I think that many people don’t realize the excess of carbohydrates they are consuming. While the daily values are very broad, and you cannot brand them to every individual, they do serve as a general guideline, and state that a person should keep their carb intake at around 300 grams in an average day. Having a sandwich and chips for lunch, followed by a potato with dinner puts you very close to that limit. In the end, and in my unprofessional opinion, I think the basics of nutrition should always be remembered. Calorie in, calorie out; those are the fundamentals of weight loss. Low-carb diets can be successful, and carried out in a healthy fashion. Multivitamins are always a plus, even for people not watching their weight. And for those that already feel perfect when perched on a scale, remember that an ideal weight is only part of leading a healthy lifestyle (skinny people can still clog their arteries!) Regular exercise and mental wellbeing are equally as important as counting carbs.

Report Abuse

26. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 4:59 pm PDT

It seems that low-carb diets certainly can help in weightloss, and that's not a bad thing . . . but what appears to be the major problem is that many people are simply looking at carbs rather than considering that they are only eating one type of food. The biggest example is the atkins diet. For the most part, it centers around meat . . . and this is purely and simply NOT HEALTHY. A diet should be varied with, of course, an appropriate amount of excercise. However, centering a diet around meat--which, mind you, is the next to last item on the food period. meaning we should eat the least amount of meat, next to fats and sugars--is one result who's consequences America will come to regret.

Report Abuse

27. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 5:40 pm PDT

If anyone's interested in the best book for explaining how lower carb diets affect the body physically (and explained so you can understand it) read Jonny Bowden's Living the Low Carb Life. I've been following a lower carb lifestyle since 1997 and I think it's a great lifestyle. It just keeps getting better with the introduction of the lower carb versions of bread and pasta (my wife likes the pasta) and all the other things that you couldn't find 1-6 years ago. By the way, I follow Atkins and it is a graduated diet depending on what you want to accomplish. Pretty much if you stay away from processed foods and eat natural stuff you get a GREAT variety. If you really want to know, the REQUIRED amount of carbs for daily metabolism...it's 0. But they do taste good:)

Report Abuse

28. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 2:50 am PDT

I have to comment on the all-or-none statement that fat's essential and carbs aren't, posted by the member who referenced tribesmen who eat "no" carbs. Most people wouldn't survive, let alone thrive, on an Inuit or Masai diet. Those who do manage to live in the severe climes of the Arctic circle on polar bear fat and fish are the result of thousands of years of slow migration of their ancestors, many of whom died miserably and didn't get to pass their genes on. After several generations, those who're still kickin' are the ones best able to _tolerate_ a high fat diet. But, like the hunter gatherers who supposedly "enjoyed robust good health," members of these populations have a shorter life expectancy. I'm sorry that this Yahoo! member had a heart attack, and it may've been partly triggered by the restriction of fat as s/he believes -- who knows? -- but there's no evidence to suggest an MI was caused by a lack of fat. Again it's about the quality of the fat. Testimonials and science agree here: more liquidy oils (with essential fatty acid Omega-6's); plus ones with Omega-3's; most carbs coming from whole grains/starchy veggies -- instead of processed products where much of the carbohydrate is sugar, and the least healthful fats are used to in order to achieve the right "mouth feel" -- lots of veggies of different colors; and of course some good lean protein, perhaps with the _occasional_ not so lean redmeat, maybe from a cow that had a decent life before slaughter. Among the tribespeople who do live long lives, it's likely due to their regular activity (read EXERCISE), rather than a diet hardly representative of the _relatively_ wide array of foods our ancestors have had available for the last few thousand years.

Report Abuse

29. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 3:47 am PDT

Woops! that posting was supposed to go to Cheryl's earlier low-carb diet blog. But I've something pertinent to say here too. If you want to lose weight, as has been said over and over, you need to eat fewer Calories than you expend. Period. The big challenge is succeeding in the effort when your brain and stomach are demanding that you eat! First, exercise. Some people are able to continue eating the same amount with a new exercise program, and they'll see weight loss. Very, very slow weight loss. This is b/c 3 hrs at the gym/wk comes to 1 to 1.5 hrs of actual activity/wk, and when just starting that's maybe 400 to 700 Cals/wk, or the equivalent of 1/9 to 1/5 of one lb of fat. For quicker weight loss, you need to cut down Caloric intake too. 30 years ago, the prevailing answer was to cut fat intake, since that's the densest form of Cals (an ounce of oil has more than double the Cals in an ounce of bread). 10 years ago this started to shift to cutting "carbs." In essence cutting out junk food (poor examples of carbs to begin with, giving the whole food group a bad name). In both cases people lost weight at first b/c most of their food choices disappeared and the result was to eat less. When low fat alternatives became abundant, people stopped losing, as is the case now somewhat with so many low-carb food options. The danger is that in Zone or Atkins form, there really isn't enough avoidance of saturated fats, especially given that the overweight population subscribing to them is already at a greater risk of cardiovascular disease. So what's the answer? For some, it may be a temporary period of low-carb just to drop the lbs. But most people won't do well with this method b/c of the diet-gain-diet-gain phenomenon. It's "dieting," and not "the diet." For most, you'll do well to pick foods with more bulk and fewer Cals. The fiber in whole grain foods, and water in leafy veggies, have 0 Cals. And many people report feeling satiety after eating what seemed like more food than usual, even though they ate fewer Cals! Or just hang in there for a period of post meal hunger for the first days. Pay attention to portion size, don't cut back Cals too radically, and you'll adapt to maintaining the deficit, as you lose 1-2 lbs/wk. Well, that's it. I hope reading this compels at least one of you to quit the consternation over which "diet," and just start moving toward regular activity, big plates of wholesome low-Caloric-density meals, and a happier you better in tune.

Report Abuse

30. Posted by A Yahoo! Health User on Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 9:16 am PDT

I put this on the other blog but the discussion has moved here so I'm pasting it in. Regarding the diets of the Masai and Inuit: there is a lot of good research on the Weston A. Price Foundation website, and it is more than just eating high-fat; it's the kind of fat and a number of other factors. In the case of the Masai it wasn't just natural selection; in central Africa they had a lot of other food choices--but they are still one of the healthiest groups in the world; in size, healthy, longevity, vigor in old age, and infant mortality. Dr. Price was a dentist (president of the ADA) who travelled all over the world with a team of researchers to try to find out why people's health seemed to be degenerating from generation to generation. What he found was that people eating their native diets were healthier than people eating a Westernized diet; and that there were certain factors that were present in the diets of the healthiest groups, whether they were on the outer Hebrides or South Pacific islands, Andean or Swiss mountains, central Africa or Asia. He studied something like 40 groups that were in a state of transition between their traditional ways and Westernization, taking not just dental measurements but looking at incidences of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and general illness. The website www.westonaprice.org contains not just his research but many, many articles and references that support his work, including sources like The Lancet, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), The New England Journal of Medicine, and many more mainstream medical publications. Yet most dieticians haven't read his work or made the connections. When you read it, many "conflicting" studies suddenly make sense, because most researchers do not distinguish between processed, factory-farmed foods and naturally-produced, unprocessed foods. Lactose intolerance, for example, was unheard of before pasteurization. Some people's bodies can't handle how heat changes the shape of the milk sugar and/or protein. Many people who are lactose-intolerant find they can drink fresh raw milk. But the research is there for anyone who will read it.

Report Abuse