Diet??

[facetguy]

I am actually. Back when I was eating eggs everyday, my labs were horrible. My doctor advised me to try Egg Beaters, but I'm not a fan of fake anything. I now eat eggs only a couple of days a week and my labs are better. Nothing else in my diet has changed really.

The pancakes and cereal (and possibly the oatmeal) you replaced the eggs with will be worse for your health in the longrun. (But those pancakes are darn good, though, aren't they!!)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MalachiConstant]

I think any ***** understands that concept, what I don't understand is how much calories am I suppose to intake when I'm not entirely sure on how much I burn. Should my daily calorie intake fluctuate everyday or should I be eating the same amount of calories everyday even on days I don't work out. I have a friend that advised me not to count my calories...which is frustrating to say the least. Currently, I'm on a 1600-1800 cal diet which is working out for me so far...I think.

The problem is that how many calories are required is incredibly variable from person to person based on numerous factors like sex, metabolic rate, activity level etc. It seems counterintuitive because of the conventional wisdom we've all been subjected to for so long but here's how to solve this issue. Get rid of all the processed crap, any sugars that don't come from fruit, anything in a box and anything that under ingredients has any words you cannot identify or pronounce. Also for a good number of people eliminating dairy and grains would be beneficial. Your diet should consist of plants and animals, things that come from nature. A good rule of thumb is to stick to the periphery of the grocery store. Now here's the complicated part. Eat till full. Stop. Repeat as necessary. Monitor how you feel and perform and titrate food to achieve desired results. I don't mean to sound condescending to you specifically, it's just frustrating that our society insists on over-complicating things to such a degree. Proper nutrition should not be so difficult and I feel like the over-complication contributes to the myriad diet related problems we are facing today.

 

[MalachiConstant]

AGGGGH this whole thread is driving me CRAZY! I'm sorry, but I have very strong opinions about how doctors (and future doctors) should view diet and exercise. As physicians, it is out goal to not only promote optimum health, but to also practice what we preach, and serve as models and educators within our communities.

What I see written here is either a lot of nonsense and jargon, or a lot of unreasonable and unhealthy approaches to weight loss and nutrition. Given that the current state of nutrition and exercise physiology education in most medical school curricula is close to nil, this scares me.

The human body has been honed over thousands and thousands of years of evolution (sincerest apologies to those who are not a proponent of this idea). It is a smart, well-oiled machine that comes pre-equipped with most of what it needs to not only survive, but thrive.

Everything you need to achieve an "ideal body weight"--i.e. the one nature intended for you, and not some unreasonable runway-model, cultural ideal--is present in nature. I think, as future physicians--especially future osteopathic physicians--we should be thinking about diet, exercise, and weight in terms of what is natural, holistic, and comprehensive.

Please, people, let's stop hijacking our bodies with all of this number-crunching and superstition and start thinking about this in terms of medicine. And please, please, take care of (and listen to) your body.

-z-line-

I especially agree with the bolded parts.

I really wish there were more focus on the role of exercise and proper nutrition in health in medical school. I've been considering different ways that I could contribute in this regard once schools starts. I've thought about forming a club and maybe setting up educational presentations for local schools, or perhaps forming a campus chapter of exercise is medicine, and maybe trying to see if we could get someone to come give a lecture to the med students. I'm interested in other ideas anyone may have. This, to me seems like the key issue for healthcare today and in the future.

Here's an interesting presentation that's worth checking out. The craziest part is the maps that show the obesity rates in America (slides 30-51) from 1985 to 2005.

 

[PunkmedGirl]

If you think your future patients will be able to accurately and consistently perform these mathematical calorie-gymnastics, guess again. Forget it. Just eat better.

The problem is that how many calories are required is incredibly variable from person to person based on numerous factors like sex, metabolic rate, activity level etc. It seems counterintuitive because of the conventional wisdom we've all been subjected to for so long but here's how to solve this issue. Get rid of all the processed crap, any sugars that don't come from fruit, anything in a box and anything that under ingredients has any words you cannot identify or pronounce. Also for a good number of people eliminating dairy and grains would be beneficial. Your diet should consist of plants and animals, things that come from nature. A good rule of thumb is to stick to the periphery of the grocery store. Now here's the complicated part. Eat till full. Stop. Repeat as necessary. Monitor how you feel and perform and titrate food to achieve desired results. I don't mean to sound condescending to you specifically, it's just frustrating that our society insists on over-complicating things to such a degree. Proper nutrition should not be so difficult and I feel like the over-complication contributes to the myriad diet related problems we are facing today.

Thanks. My problem doesn't really lie in the types of foods I eat because of my diabetes I have no choice but to eat healthy, but my main problem is am I eating enough food to properly fuel my body or am I overeating. For me, its not about loosing weight but more so about providing enough fuel for my body to run properly. I think I'm doing an okay job...but sometimes I second guess myself.

 

[Gabby]

Thanks. My problem doesn't really lie in the types of foods I eat because of my diabetes I have no choice but to eat healthy, but my main problem is am I eating enough food to properly fuel my body or am I overeating. For me, its not about loosing weight but more so about providing enough fuel for my body to run properly. I think I'm doing an okay job...but sometimes I second guess myself.

Are you passing out from exhaustion in the middle of the day? Are you not able to concentrate because you're sleepy or sluggish? Are you light-headed? Dizzy? If not, then you're most likely getting enough fuel. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Gabby]

I especially agree with the bolded parts.

I really wish there were more focus on the role of exercise and proper nutrition in health in medical school. I've been considering different ways that I could contribute in this regard once schools starts. I've thought about forming a club and maybe setting up educational presentations for local schools, or perhaps forming a campus chapter of exercise is medicine, and maybe trying to see if we could get someone to come give a lecture to the med students. I'm interested in other ideas anyone may have. This, to me seems like the key issue for healthcare today and in the future.

Here's an interesting presentation that's worth checking out. The craziest part is the maps that show the obesity rates in America (slides 30-51) from 1985 to 2005.

One of the schools I interviewed at had a club called Fit Doctors of America. I ended up not going there, but I'm thinking of starting a similar club at my school.

 

[bigDinLV]

Often repeated but doesn't stand up to science. Read Taubes 'Good Calories Bad Calories'.

Stands up as a good general rule.

There is no way you can tell me that eating 4000 "good" calories per day when you have a metabolic need of 2200 calories would cause weight loss. As well as the other way around.

 

[bigDinLV]

Thanks. My problem doesn't really lie in the types of foods I eat because of my diabetes I have no choice but to eat healthy, but my main problem is am I eating enough food to properly fuel my body or am I overeating. For me, its not about loosing weight but more so about providing enough fuel for my body to run properly. I think I'm doing an okay job...but sometimes I second guess myself.

Insulin or orals for your DM?

 

[PunkmedGirl]

Are you passing out from exhaustion in the middle of the day? Are you not able to concentrate because you're sleepy or sluggish? Are you light-headed? Dizzy? If not, then you're most likely getting enough fuel. This isn't rocket science.

Insulin or orals for your DM?

It's not about whether its rocket science or not, but a matter of me trying to get different viewpoints about my diet and others who may be in a similar situation as myself. Yes, there have been times were I experienced all of those ailments but through trial and error I believe its getting better.

In the beginning it was insulin, but was able to switch to orals. I've also cut back on my orals because I'm trying to control it through diet and exercise. This is why I'm so particular and often confused about what I should and should not take. I've had 3 different doctors advise me differently on the type of diet I should follow. I went to countless different seminars..informational sessions about diet and diabetes. All suggest that you cut your carbs to a minimum, but in some weird way I don't agree with that because you need carbs to fuel your body when exercising.

 

[Dello]

Veggies, chicken breast, fruit, good fats, lots of water. These are easy to store/make and healthy choices.

 

[BassCaster]

fitday.com along with eggs, ON whey, oatmeal, pineapple, guac n tortilla chips ;b , brown rice, veggies, flank steak, chicken, and soup have transformed me into a beast on the mat. I can out wrestle people for 2 hours straight.

cut 14 pounds since april 10th and i'm stronger than ever on the mat and the gym.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
There is no way you can tell me that eating 4000 "good" calories per day when you have a metabolic need of 2200 calories would cause weight loss. As well as the other way around.

I don't know what that book is about, but certainly on the Atkins diet, you can eat as many carb-free calories as you want, and will lose weight. Part of the reason that diet is so popular -- it's based on the notion that without the carb component, you go into a "benign ketotic" state and your body uses fat instead of storing any. Seems to work well for people while they are on the diet, eating tons of pork, bacon, steaks and fish, but it's a diet that has a very high attrition rate because of all the foods you have to totally give up.

 

[MalachiConstant]

It's not about whether its rocket science or not, but a matter of me trying to get different viewpoints about my diet and others who may be in a similar situation as myself. Yes, there have been times were I experienced all of those ailments but through trial and error I believe its getting better.

In the beginning it was insulin, but was able to switch to orals. I've also cut back on my orals because I'm trying to control it through diet and exercise. This is why I'm so particular and often confused about what I should and should not take. I've had 3 different doctors advise me differently on the type of diet I should follow. I went to countless different seminars..informational sessions about diet and diabetes. All suggest that you cut your carbs to a minimum, but in some weird way I don't agree with that because you need carbs to fuel your body when exercising.

I would say the low carb route is the way to go. I've seen a good bit of anecdotal evidence of people who've dropped their fasting glucose and A1C doing this and there's some good studies to back this up. Your body will operate perfectly fine, perhaps even better after an adaptation period, on ketones. Most people who are able to stick with it say (and this is my personal experience as well) that you deal with about 2 weeks of brain fog and decreased athletic performance when low carb, but things go back to normal after that.

 

[bigDinLV]

I don't know what that book is about, but certainly on the Atkins diet, you can eat as many carb-free calories as you want, and will lose weight. Part of the reason that diet is so popular -- it's based on the notion that without the carb component, you go into a "benign ketotic" state and your body uses fat instead of storing any. Seems to work well for people while they are on the diet, eating tons of pork, bacon, steaks and fish, but it's a diet that has a very high attrition rate because of all the foods you have to totally give up.

News flash!! It is possible to overeat on the Atkins diet and NOT lose weight.

 

[bigDinLV]

For punkmed..

Build muscle - it will increase your base metabolic rate.
I'd honestly go with a regular amount of carbs but just kinda do an overall food/calorie restriction. Your normal diet, just smaller portions. As far as the carbs that you do eat, i'd go with mostly complex carbs through the day a little simple before and after workouts.

 

[PunkmedGirl]

I would say the low carb route is the way to go. I've seen a good bit of anecdotal evidence of people who've dropped their fasting glucose and A1C doing this and there's some good studies to back this up. Your body will operate perfectly fine, perhaps even better after an adaptation period, on ketones. Most people who are able to stick with it say (and this is my personal experience as well) that you deal with about 2 weeks of brain fog and decreased athletic performance when low carb, but things go back to normal after that.

For punkmed..

Build muscle - it will increase your base metabolic rate.
I'd honestly go with a regular amount of carbs but just kinda do an overall food/calorie restriction. Your normal diet, just smaller portions. As far as the carbs that you do eat, i'd go with mostly complex carbs through the day a little simple before and after workouts.

Mal, I've found that this really doesn't work for me...my fog lasted longer than a couple weeks. I think would work for someone living a sedentary lifestyle or just moderate exercise, but for someone who is training for endurance sports like myself, I've found that this doesn't cut it. I've tried various ways to keep my carbs low while trying to move forward with my training but it hasn't really worked.

So like BigD suggested, I have switched back to eating the recommended complex carbs for a non-diabetic woman recently. I'll see if its helping or hurting me next month.

Thanks.

 

[facetguy]

Mal, I've found that this really doesn't work for me...my fog lasted longer than a couple weeks. I think would work for someone living a sedentary lifestyle or just moderate exercise, but for someone who is training for endurance sports like myself, I've found that this doesn't cut it. I've tried various ways to keep my carbs low while trying to move forward with my training but it hasn't really worked.

So like BigD suggested, I have switched back to eating the recommended complex carbs for a non-diabetic woman recently. I'll see if its helping or hurting me next month.

Thanks.

As long as by "complex carbs" you are talking about "low glycemic carbs".

 

[PunkmedGirl]

As long as by "complex carbs" you are talking about "low glycemic carbs".

That's correct.

 

[Zline]

I especially agree with the bolded parts.

I really wish there were more focus on the role of exercise and proper nutrition in health in medical school. I've been considering different ways that I could contribute in this regard once schools starts. I've thought about forming a club and maybe setting up educational presentations for local schools, or perhaps forming a campus chapter of exercise is medicine, and maybe trying to see if we could get someone to come give a lecture to the med students. I'm interested in other ideas anyone may have. This, to me seems like the key issue for healthcare today and in the future.

Here's an interesting presentation that's worth checking out. The craziest part is the maps that show the obesity rates in America (slides 30-51) from 1985 to 2005.

YES!!!


!@#$%&*!

Finally someone gets it!

 

[Law2Doc]

News flash!! It is possible to overeat on the Atkins diet and NOT lose weight.

Not if you buy into the theory they are basing the diet on -- that your body won't be able to use the proteins and fats in excess if you don't have the carbs. The theory of the Adkins diet, which has actually been supported by fairly comprehensive studies at a couple of major universities (Penn and Duke I believe), is that you can literally eat an unlimited amount of certain foods so long as you keep the carbs down below a miniscule level. You might not like the theory, but study upon study have shown that the only real downside of Adkins is that because you have to give up a lot of foods, it's pretty rare to maintain. So no, you cannot "overeat ... and NOT lose weight" on Adkins. You will gain weight if you eat the WRONG foods, but have pretty much free reign to eat as much as you want of carb-free stuff, and you will lose weight. So yes, this is a diet on which you can lose weight eating nothing but red meat, bacon, fish, cooked in butter, and in virtually unlimited quantities. Read up on Adkins and the studies I mentioned if you don't believe me (and I actually don't care if you do).

 

[MattD]

Not if you buy into the theory they are basing the diet on -- that your body won't be able to use the proteins and fats in excess if you don't have the carbs. The theory of the Adkins diet, which has actually been supported by fairly comprehensive studies at a couple of major universities (Penn and Duke I believe), is that you can literally eat an unlimited amount of certain foods so long as you keep the carbs down below a miniscule level. You might not like the theory, but study upon study have shown that the only real downside of Adkins is that because you have to give up a lot of foods, it's pretty rare to maintain. So no, you cannot "overeat ... and NOT lose weight" on Adkins. You will gain weight if you eat the WRONG foods, but have pretty much free reign to eat as much as you want of carb-free stuff, and you will lose weight. So yes, this is a diet on which you can lose weight eating nothing but red meat, bacon, fish, cooked in butter, and in virtually unlimited quantities. Read up on Adkins and the studies I mentioned if you don't believe me (and I actually don't care if you do).

Everyone knows that eating a high-protein, high-fat, low-carb diet leads to epidural hematoma and death.

 

[Zline]

So expand on that. What do you have for breakfast? I find that if I don't have eggs or pancakes or something like that, I'm still hungry. Eggs aren't good for you every day obviously and I try to eat cereal or oatmeal with some fruit or something, but it just doesn't fill me up for more than an hour.

Parietal lobe--

What is it in the eggs/pancakes that satiates you? I am interested mostly because eggs (fat + protein) tend to have a very different macronutrient breakdown compared to pancakes (mostly carbohydrates). Are you putting butter/margarine or peanut butter on your pancakes? In that case, I would guess that it's protein and fat that keeps you feeling full, which is the case for many people.

Everyone's body responds to different foods in different ways. I myself can eat a big bowl of oatmeal with nuts and dried fruit and feel satisfied for a lonnnng time (my guess is this is from the protein/fats in nuts, and the fiber in oatmeal...but who even cares?). I suggest experimenting with lots of different foods, with an emphasis on plant-based ones, to find which ones satisfy your hunger.

Nuts, seeds, and beans are a good place to start...

 

[bigDinLV]

Not if you buy into the theory they are basing the diet on -- that your body won't be able to use the proteins and fats in excess if you don't have the carbs. The theory of the Adkins diet, which has actually been supported by fairly comprehensive studies at a couple of major universities (Penn and Duke I believe), is that you can literally eat an unlimited amount of certain foods so long as you keep the carbs down below a miniscule level. You might not like the theory, but study upon study have shown that the only real downside of Adkins is that because you have to give up a lot of foods, it's pretty rare to maintain. So no, you cannot "overeat ... and NOT lose weight" on Adkins. You will gain weight if you eat the WRONG foods, but have pretty much free reign to eat as much as you want of carb-free stuff, and you will lose weight. So yes, this is a diet on which you can lose weight eating nothing but red meat, bacon, fish, cooked in butter, and in virtually unlimited quantities. Read up on Adkins and the studies I mentioned if you don't believe me (and I actually don't care if you do).

References? Penn and Duke shouldn't be hard to find.

 

[Law2Doc]

Everyone knows that eating a high-protein, high-fat, low-carb diet leads to epidural hematoma and death.

LOL, Only if you slip on the ice like Dr Atkins. Actually none of the dietician attacks on the diet have proven to be accurate. The only thing folks can peg on this diet as to why people shouldn't be on it is that sustainability is far far lower than other diets for the simple reason that nobody wants to give up all the fun carb foods for the rest of their life. There's only so many months you can be willing to eat your burger with no bun before it gets old. If you got fat in the first place it's usually because you have some carb related vice. This diet is going to force you to give that up forever. Other diets might allow you to still have it, but with portion control. Hence Atkins won't be sustainable longterm for most. But might be a good jumpstart for many if they can do it for a couple of months, lose the weight and THEN switch to portion control.

Truth of the matter is that most of the diets out there work, if you stick to them. The trick is finding one you can stick with, and then marry it to some sort of regular exercise program. No magic behind it.

 

[Law2Doc]

References? Penn and Duke shouldn't be hard to find.

Here's a blurb on the Penn study: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/May03/Foster.html

And one from the Duke study: http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/7598

These summaries contain references to the full publications, you can pull them off pubmed if you want to read the whole thing.

 

[facetguy]

This guy (http://www.dukehealth.org/physicians/eric_c_westman) is the Director of Duke's Lifestyle Medicine Clinic. He happens to be the author of the latest incarnation of the Atkin's Diet Book (http://www.amazon.com/New-Atkins-Yo...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274619349&sr=8-1), co-authored by Jeff Volek, who is also a well-known researcher in this area, along with Stephen Phinney, an MD/PhD on the editorial board of ACJN.

The Atkins Diet has come a long way.

A few new papers have also added to the notion that saturated fats do not have the harmful cardiovascular effects we've all been brainwashed into believing. It's becoming more clear that it's the carbs that are the problem.

 

[bigDinLV]

Yes, the studies say they can eat an unlimited amount of certain foods. But if you actually learn more, many people suggest that a major part of the weight loss is simple calorie restriction when on the Atkins diet. They can eat whatever they want but often are low on calories without the carbs. The diet will also suppress appetite and lend to the calorie restriction. When you compare this diet to those simply doing calorie restriction, still eating things they like in small amounts, there is no difference at one year. Everyone just gets excited during the first few weeks because the number on the scale gets smaller, but it is water loss.

Neither of those suggest this diet would still work if someone were to consume 8000 calories per day of the selected foods. Problem is, this study won't exist. You guys will insist that you could overeat though, because that article does use the word "unlimited". You simply won't find something that proves you can OVEREAT (key word here!!!!!) and still lose weight.

This just came about because L2D though he had a chance to get in my ****.

 

[MalachiConstant]

Mal, I've found that this really doesn't work for me...my fog lasted longer than a couple weeks. I think would work for someone living a sedentary lifestyle or just moderate exercise, but for someone who is training for endurance sports like myself, I've found that this doesn't cut it. I've tried various ways to keep my carbs low while trying to move forward with my training but it hasn't really worked.

So like BigD suggested, I have switched back to eating the recommended complex carbs for a non-diabetic woman recently. I'll see if its helping or hurting me next month.

Thanks.

I've maintained pretty high activity levels on a ketogenic diet, but my training wasn't geared toward endurance, which probably does require more carbs for maximum performance. In general, for ideal health, I think lowish carb (<150 g and all from vegetables) is still the way to go, but ultimately we tailor our lifestyle to fit our goals. I don't think throwing in some low glycemic carbs if you're exercising a bunch is a big deal.

YES!!!


!@#$%&*!

Finally someone gets it!

Thanks, I thought the same thing after reading one of your posts. It sucks though, because it's such an uphill battle. Even if physicians were properly armed with the necessary fitness and nutrition knowledge, from what I've seen, very few patients are actually receptive to such advice. Perhaps if all docs were able to provide better and more consistent advice in these areas more people would listen. Or maybe things will get so bad that people will finally be forced to take notice of the problem. It took me a while to get it myself. Working in an icu, seeing people slowly dying in misery as a result of practices I myself had been engaging in did the trick for me, but as proven by the plethora of morbidly obese nurses I worked with, I don't know that even seeing this would work for most people. It's tough, but I still feel obligated to do something.

 

[facetguy]

Yes, the studies say they can eat an unlimited amount of certain foods. But if you actually learn more, many people suggest that a major part of the weight loss is simple calorie restriction when on the Atkins diet. They can eat whatever they want but often are low on calories without the carbs. The diet will also suppress appetite and lend to the calorie restriction. When you compare this diet to those simply doing calorie restriction, still eating things they like in small amounts, there is no difference at one year. Everyone just gets excited during the first few weeks because the number on the scale gets smaller, but it is water loss.

As to the bolded, that's the idea. Different foods have different hormonal impacts. That's why a calorie is not a calorie.

As to the underlined, you may be referring to an NEJM study from last year: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/859
I recall reading some criticism of this paper after it was published, mostly from the low-carb camp, so as always take the conclusions in full context.

 

[facetguy]

I've maintained pretty high activity levels on a ketogenic diet, but my training wasn't geared toward endurance, which probably does require more carbs for maximum performance. In general, for ideal health, I think lowish carb (<150 g and all from vegetables) is still the way to go, but ultimately we tailor our lifestyle to fit our goals. I don't think throwing in some low glycemic carbs if you're exercising a bunch is a big deal.

Cordain wrote a book directed toward the athletic population (http://www.amazon.com/Paleo-Diet-At...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274634968&sr=8-2). It may be helpful.

Thanks, I thought the same thing after reading one of your posts. It sucks though, because it's such an uphill battle. Even if physicians were properly armed with the necessary fitness and nutrition knowledge, from what I've seen, very few patients are actually receptive to such advice. Perhaps if all docs were able to provide better and more consistent advice in these areas more people would listen. Or maybe things will get so bad that people will finally be forced to take notice of the problem. It took me a while to get it myself. Working in an icu, seeing people slowly dying in misery as a result of practices I myself had been engaging in did the trick for me, but as proven by the plethora of morbidly obese nurses I worked with, I don't know that even seeing this would work for most people. It's tough, but I still feel obligated to do something.

It is tough. There are many obstacles. David Kessler (former FDA commissioner) wrote a book on how the food industry takes advantage of our weaknesses (http://www.amazon.com/End-Overeatin...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274635140&sr=1-1). To tell you the truth, after reading this book I felt as though it may be more hopeless than ever!

Patients do take cues from their physicians. Since physicians don't make diet and nutrition a real priority, patients walk away with the sense that it must not be that important. Obviously, there are reasons physicians don't make it a priority. They may not be adequately educated in this area. Or 'the system' doesn't allow enough time and doesn't reimburse enough for these efforts. This has to change, as we as a society are more unhealthy than ever, we take more drugs than ever, and our healthcare system is on the verge of financial collapse (until Obama fixes it, of course).

 

[MalachiConstant]

As to the bolded, that's the idea. Different foods have different hormonal impacts. That's why a calorie is not a calorie.

As to the underlined, you may be referring to an NEJM study from last year: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/859
I recall reading some criticism of this paper after it was published, mostly from the low-carb camp, so as always take the conclusions in full context.

Agreed. The problem with that particular study is that a conclusion can't really be drawn in regards to a low carb diet because none of the groups studied would really qualify as such. Their "high protein, high fat" group had a macronutrient percentage breakdown of 40 25 35 which contains more carbs than what I would think a person on a typical low carb diet would consume.

Not that I think it really matters, because like you and others mentioned, one of the added benefits of eating more fat and protein is the greater level of satiety and thus the ease with which one can reduce caloric intake. Unless you have a black hole for a stomach, it's pretty darn hard to overeat on a low carb, high fat, plan.

Cordain wrote a book directed toward the athletic population (http://www.amazon.com/Paleo-Diet-At...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274634968&sr=8-2). It may be helpful.

I think you've mentioned this before. I've been catching up on pleasure reading since school ended, but thanks for the reminder. I need to give it a look.

It is tough. There are many obstacles. David Kessler (former FDA commissioner) wrote a book on how the food industry takes advantage of our weaknesses (http://www.amazon.com/End-Overeatin...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274635140&sr=1-1). To tell you the truth, after reading this book I felt as though it may be more hopeless than ever!

Patients do take cues from their physicians. Since physicians don't make diet and nutrition a real priority, patients walk away with the sense that it must not be that important. Obviously, there are reasons physicians don't make it a priority. They may not be adequately educated in this area. Or 'the system' doesn't allow enough time and doesn't reimburse enough for these efforts. This has to change, as we as a society are more unhealthy than ever, we take more drugs than ever, and our healthcare system is on the verge of financial collapse (until Obama fixes it, of course).

I'll have to check out that book as well.

Though I'm headed to a DO school, I shadowed a chiropractor for a while because he had a gym integrated into his practice and also had a masters in nutrition. I was hoping to see how to integrate this stuff into a medical practice, but to be honest, even he didn't focus on that stuff very much anymore because of the reimbursement issues and the patients lack of interest in hearing about lifestyle changes. It was disappointing, because I saw that the populations that most need this advice are the ones least willing to listen to it. You're right though, something needs to be done.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yes, the studies say they can eat an unlimited amount of certain foods. But if you actually learn more, many people suggest that a major part of the weight loss is simple calorie restriction when on the Atkins diet. They can eat whatever they want but often are low on calories without the carbs....
This just came about because L2D though he had a chance to get in my ****.

Actually this isn't the case. This was the knee jerk response of dieticians everywhere once the diet came out. They didn't want to concede that you could eat as much as you wanted and still lose weight so they said "oh, but it's probably still because you are eating fewer calories because it's hard to eat a ton of calories eating meats". They also said, all those eggs and meat and your cholesterol would go sky high. Then the studies started coming out and these people were shut up. In fact, you can eat crazy amounts of food on Atkins and still lose weight and see your LDL levels decrease if the carbs are held close to nil. This was a huge upset to the dietician world. So they saved face by saying, it's still a bad diet because nobody sticks to it. Which is probably true. But that doesn't detract from the fact that you can absolutely overeat and lose weight on this diet. Sorry but you are simply wrong.

And I don't have any idea what your deal with me is --- you have moved your attack from another thread to this one, for reasons I don't quite understand. I have no issues with you and have no interest in getting in your **** or whatever your deal is. Chill out.

 

[Depakote]

Just a reminder... Please keep the discussion in this thread and refrain from calling out other users.

Thanks.

 

[OpalOnyx]

ok... i have a maybe silly question. but where do beans fall in the category? they're rich in protein but plant-based.... does the atkins diet say it's ok to eat lots of beans

 

[bigDinLV]

Actually this isn't the case. This was the knee jerk response of dieticians everywhere once the diet came out. They didn't want to concede that you could eat as much as you wanted and still lose weight so they said "oh, but it's probably still because you are eating fewer calories because it's hard to eat a ton of calories eating meats". They also said, all those eggs and meat and your cholesterol would go sky high. Then the studies started coming out and these people were shut up. In fact, you can eat crazy amounts of food on Atkins and still lose weight and see your LDL levels decrease if the carbs are held close to nil. This was a huge upset to the dietician world. So they saved face by saying, it's still a bad diet because nobody sticks to it. Which is probably true. But that doesn't detract from the fact that you can absolutely overeat and lose weight on this diet. Sorry but you are simply wrong.

And I don't have any idea what your deal with me is --- you have moved your attack from another thread to this one, for reasons I don't quite understand. I have no issues with you and have no interest in getting in your **** or whatever your deal is. Chill out.

You said I am wrong and quoted big name institutions, I asked for references and you provided something vague about unlimited foods. At no point did I mention anything about cholesterol, you're rambling off on a tangent. Didn't I say something about subject change in that other thread too? This is a pattern.

Show me a study that says a person on Atkins can have extreme caloric excess and still lose weight. Until you can do that you can't prove I am "simply wrong", so until then STFU.

Just so you don't go off rambling again, I put the part I want you to prove wrong in bold. Just so it is clear

 

[shouldvestudied]

It is absolutely frightening that some of you posting in this thread with the caloric excess nonsense are Medical Students or PGs.

Gary Taubes did an exceptional job debunking the "weight gain = calories in - calories expended" myth in Good Calories, Bad Calories.

The major storage hormone in the human body is insulin. Insulin goes up, you store more fat. It's quite simple. In fact, insulin therapy used to be considered an acceptable treatment for anorexia. Chronically high insulin levels create a situation of internal starvation where you may be eating a lot of calories, but most of those calories are being sequestered in fat cells and thus there isn't enough energy available for the rest of your body. People who are fat eat more because they are fat, they aren't fat because they more.

Ths the trick to avoiding weight gain is controlling your insulin level. Eat vegetables and (if you have to) low glycemic complex carbs like oatmeal for your daily carbs. No white bread, no pasta, no sugar. Or hell, go Inuit style and eat mostly meat. The brain and body run really well on Ketone Bodies. Studies have even shown that mild ketosis has a neuroprotective effect on the brain against Alzheimer's Disease.

The body is a wonderful machine that adjusts its energy expenditure based on how many calories it has available to it. If you eat high glycemic foods, less of the calories that you eat are available for use (since they're being stored as fat) and the body will choose to put off tasks and thus lower its energy consumption.

 

[facetguy]

You said I am wrong and quoted big name institutions, I asked for references and you provided something vague about unlimited foods. At no point did I mention anything about cholesterol, you're rambling off on a tangent. Didn't I say something about subject change in that other thread too? This is a pattern.

Show me a study that says a person on Atkins can have extreme caloric excess and still lose weight. Until you can do that you can't prove I am "simply wrong", so until then STFU.

Just so you don't go off rambling again, I put the part I want you to prove wrong in bold. Just so it is clear

Here's one that looked at ad libitum intakes while on low carb diets: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16002798 The opening line of the abstract says it all.

And the NEJM study I posted earlier found that the low-carb arm was not calorie-restricted and yet produced the most weight loss.

The idea is that low carb diets allow people to be satiated (i.e., not hungry all the time), and therefore they have no need to, and therefore won't, eat extreme amounts of calories anyway.

 

[facetguy]

ok... i have a maybe silly question. but where do beans fall in the category? they're rich in protein but plant-based.... does the atkins diet say it's ok to eat lots of beans

No beans in the initial 'Induction' phase, but OK in modest amounts in the later maintenance phases.

 

[bigDinLV]

That guy is a science writer, granted he has some credential. His book reviewed a lot of science but where there any research directly related to it? there was also rebuttal to his claims by other groups. Guess it just depends on who you choose to believe.

This same guy also claims exercise is an ineffective weight loss tool...

 

[Gabby]

It is absolutely frightening that some of you posting in this thread with the caloric excess nonsense are Medical Students or PGs.

Gary Taubes did an exceptional job debunking the "weight gain = calories in - calories expended" myth in Good Calories, Bad Calories.

The major storage hormone in the human body is insulin. Insulin goes up, you store more fat. It's quite simple. In fact, insulin therapy used to be considered an acceptable treatment for anorexia. Chronically high insulin levels create a situation of internal starvation where you may be eating a lot of calories, but most of those calories are being sequestered in fat cells and thus there isn't enough energy available for the rest of your body. People who are fat eat more because they are fat, they aren't fat because they more.

Ths the trick to avoiding weight gain is controlling your insulin level. Eat vegetables and (if you have to) low glycemic complex carbs like oatmeal for your daily carbs. No white bread, no pasta, no sugar. Or hell, go Inuit style and eat mostly meat. The brain and body run really well on Ketone Bodies. Studies have even shown that mild ketosis has a neuroprotective effect on the brain against Alzheimer's Disease.

The body is a wonderful machine that adjusts its energy expenditure based on how many calories it has available to it. If you eat high glycemic foods, less of the calories that you eat are available for use (since they're being stored as fat) and the body will choose to put off tasks and thus lower its energy consumption.

Best post in this whole thread. Thank you!

Now, what about brown rice? LOL

 

[da8s0859q]

I think the argument is that exercise increases appetite. A lot of people jog for a half hour then think it gives them license to face **** a box of pop tarts.

"Face **** a box of pop tarts". Funniest damn thing I've read all day.

 

[singinfifi]

"Face **** a box of pop tarts". Funniest damn thing I've read all day.

Holy crap. That is the most amazing sentence ever....

I lost weight on Atkins after my accident (50 pounds), it worked great for me. Unfortunately with no time to cook it is (as they have said) pretty much unsustainable long term, or I would have done it again to kick off the last 30 pounds I'm trying to lose. Thankfully the 50 stayed gone after I went off the diet. I was pretty concerned about that.

 

[bigDinLV]

Here's one that looked at ad libitum intakes while on low carb diets: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16002798 The opening line of the abstract says it all.

And the NEJM study I posted earlier found that the low-carb arm was not calorie-restricted and yet produced the most weight loss.

The idea is that low carb diets allow people to be satiated (i.e., not hungry all the time), and therefore they have no need to, and therefore won't, eat extreme amounts of calories anyway.

BACKGROUND: Ad libitum, low-carbohydrate diets decrease caloric intake and cause weight loss.

Yea... That's what I said, the diet causes a calorie restriction, a decrease in caloric intake and weight loss. Thank you for supporting my point.

Now go and find one that will say excess caloric intake will cause weight reduction. Did you actually read any of my posts? As I said before you guys would say that unrestricted diet meant overeating. Let me clarify for you. When I say overeating, I mean caloric excess, eating too many calories.

My point is, i'm sure you could gain weight on Atkins if the caloric intake was high enough. L2D said this wasn't the case, went as far as saying I was simply wrong but hasn't provided anything to support it. Everyone here is sooooooooo smart and so ready to be right they seem to be missing the main point.

 

[facetguy]

BACKGROUND: Ad libitum, low-carbohydrate diets decrease caloric intake and cause weight loss.

Yea... That's what I said, the diet causes a calorie restriction, a decrease in caloric intake and weight loss. Thank you for supporting my point.

Now go and find one that will say excess caloric intake will cause weight reduction. Did you actually read any of my posts? As I said before you guys would say that unrestricted diet meant overeating. Let me clarify for you. When I say overeating, I mean caloric excess, eating too many calories.

My point is, i'm sure you could gain weight on Atkins if the caloric intake was high enough. L2D said this wasn't the case, went as far as saying I was simply wrong but hasn't provided anything to support it. Everyone here is sooooooooo smart and so ready to be right they seem to be missing the main point.

The main point is what happens in real life, with your real patients. Following a low-carb diet allows for weight loss regardless of how much a patient eats, and low-carb diets, because of the satiety effect, may allow patients to eat less. Even if the calories were the same, the concept of the "metabolic advantage" says that the low-carbers will come out better. Discussing the effects of a 10,000 calorie diet is irrelevant, unless you eat junk carbs all day and never feel full.

 

[bigDinLV]

The main point is what happens in real life, with your real patients. Following a low-carb diet allows for weight loss regardless of how much a patient eats, and low-carb diets, because of the satiety effect, may allow patients to eat less. Even if the calories were the same, the concept of the "metabolic advantage" says that the low-carbers will come out better. Discussing the effects of a 10,000 calorie diet is irrelevant, unless you eat junk carbs all day and never feel full.

When I say that it is possible to overeat and L2D jumps in and says that it isn't possible because of the theory and I am simply wrong that is where the debate lies. I'm sure somewhere out there are people that would overeat on the low carb diet and gain weight, just as there are people that get a gastric bypass and then stuff themselves with milk shakes and continue to gain weight.

I know bodybuilders that will do low carb and carb free post workout times and continue to gain lean body mass. These guys take in huge amounts of calories each day. Some do low carb and cut weight but some can also do similar carb amounts and gain weight it all depends on the rest of the protein and fat intake

 

[ToldYouSo]

I believe everyone would benefit health-wise and energy-wise by eating more plant based whole foods... I start out every morning with a green drink (dark leafy greens and fruit blended into a smoothie in a high speed blender) and have a huge salad for lunch. Once you start giving your body more natural whole food, it will crave the good stuff and reject the junk. PETA has a "sexiest vegetarian over 50" contest and the female winner is 71 years old...and she looks incredible.
http://prime.peta.org/contest-sexyveg-over50-winners.php

 

[PunkmedGirl]

I believe everyone would benefit health-wise and energy-wise by eating more plant based whole foods... I start out every morning with a green drink (dark leafy greens and fruit blended into a smoothie in a high speed blender) and have a huge salad for lunch. Once you start giving your body more natural whole food, it will crave the good stuff and reject the junk. PETA has a "sexiest vegetarian over 50" contest and the female winner is 71 years old...and she looks incredible.
http://prime.peta.org/contest-sexyveg-over50-winners.php

Wow, she looks great. Uhmmmmmm, I'm becoming a vegan. LOL

 

[facetguy]

I believe everyone would benefit health-wise and energy-wise by eating more plant based whole foods... I start out every morning with a green drink (dark leafy greens and fruit blended into a smoothie in a high speed blender) and have a huge salad for lunch. Once you start giving your body more natural whole food, it will crave the good stuff and reject the junk. PETA has a "sexiest vegetarian over 50" contest and the female winner is 71 years old...and she looks incredible.
http://prime.peta.org/contest-sexyveg-over50-winners.php

I just can't get myself to click that link.

 

[ToldYouSo]

I just can't get myself to click that link.

Rofl XD

 

[facetguy]

Why?

I'll pass. Too many pitfalls in answering.