Advantages of low-carb diets over the "John Stone approach"?
 

Hello,

I've taken an active role in helping my overweight mother try to lose the weight. She's seen friends who have had success with South Beach, and my brother did lose some weight for a short amount of time with Atkins.

I've been trying to get her use the "John Stone approach" (I don't really have a name for this, but it might be similar to the Body-For-Life approach). John Stone's website helped me find a *healthy* approach to dieting that has helped me successfully lose 20 pounds. Keep in mind that while I am a 15-year-old, and my metabolism may be giving me a boost, I managed to lose it without feeling hungry.

This site also summarizes it pretty well. I can't call it "high protein" or "low carb" -- simply put, it's just healthy and balanced. And even though some people think diets stunt teens' growth, I am certainly getting a lot more nutrients this way than with my previous garbage diet.

But I digress. I want to know what you guys and girls think the advantages of low-carbing are with respect to the other approach. Keep in mind that on that diet, one does not eat "bad carbs" (they're all GI except for post-work out carbs), just much more than you all do.

Well, I only read 2-3 days worth of menu for June.

Personally, I don't think his choices for "good"carbs are really NOT good choices. Orange juice is high GI, pretzels too and also probably contain transfats. Those are the two that really jumped out at me. Neither are good choices.

If he'd had a couple of triscuits or other high fiber cracker instead of the pretzels....and a whole orange rather than the juice his choices would be better.

I'll stick with LC, thanks.

It's odd to find a 15 year old who uses the term "I digress".

Look at his diet while he was losing weight (Up till June 2003)

Yes, if I were he, I would not drink orange juice. He didn't eat perfectly, but none of us do. Anyway, the point is the approach, not his exact diet. The approach is balanced, not low carb or low fat.

patricia, are you doubting my age or complimenting me? :)

Odd, but not unheard of. I thought, 'Hmmm. This kid sounds like one of mine!' ;)

Anyhow, I'll bite!

Low-carb diets offer certain advantages to certain people. I don't believe they are for everyone. I believe various people can handle different amounts of sugars going into their bodies with completely different results. For those of us who benefit from low-carb diets, the results will be: normalized blood sugar levels, weight loss at a better rate than on a low-fat high-carb regime, drops in blood lipid levels, certain allergies and sensitivities to foods are alleviated or disappear, blood pressure levels returned to normal, afflictions like arthritis vanish, often times mood swings are leveled out, more energy, no sleepiness from eating carb-laden meals. And the list goes on and on and on.

The truth is, genetics plays a very important role in the types of food people should eat. While most people of European descent can tolerate higher levels of carbohydrates, many aboriginal people can't. Look at what a western diet has done to native Americans. Additionally, in the past, the higher carb levels enjoyed by whites (Europeans) were mainly unprocessed carbohydrates. As more people eat more and more processed foods, the overweight are becoming even more overweight, the amount of obese children is sky rocketing and diabetes is reaching unheard-of levels.

In a nutshell, a low-carb lifestyle can and will alleviate many of these problems.

I'd like to add here, that a balanced, nutritious approach will work for many people while dieting. However, for many of us on Atkins it takes something drastic to shake us up. I tried a balanced approach. I tried low-fat. It just didn't work.

What it boils down to is that everyone has what Dr. Atkins refers to as their own critical carb level. One person's CCL can be 100 carbs per day, while someone else's may be only 50 or less. The Atkins Nutritional Approach takes this into account, and by the time a person reaches maintenance they will be on their very own balanced plan, balanced to their own personal needs. :)

Is it possible that you simply followed the balanced approach incorrectly?

I think that rather depends on what your definition of "healthy" and "balanced" are. The second link that you provided refers to Atkins as "wildly unbalanced", but doesn't really state why they consider it so.
The nutritional needs of a growing 15 year old attempting a serious body building regime are quite different from that of a post menopausal woman who exercises moderately.
Besides...what's wildly unbalanced about adequate protein, healthy fats, a large variety of vegetables and small amounts of low glycemic fruits?

Not at all. My first organized effort at weight loss was with Weight Watchers, which is 'balanced' by all accounts while low-fat. The first time I lost around 15 pounds over about 6 months and was happy with that. Then I discovered I was pregnant, ran in to financial problems (husband lost his job) so couldn't continue. Keep in mind during the entire weight loss time I also struggled with low blood sugar, constant hunger and severe cravings.

After my second baby was born I went back and tried again. I stuck with the plan, except for a once-a-week 2-oz. nut fest to give me some fat. Again, I went through the constant hunger and low blood sugar. I walked out of my last meeting after more than three months and only losing 5 pounds. Keep in mind, I was only 26 years old--not old enough I should've been having metabolism problems.

Finally, I tried Richard Simmons. Now according to all the health experts out there, these diets should've been working for me perfectly. I never exceeded the maximum allotment of foods per day, and honestly never even experienced the water weight loss which first accompanies a diet. Again, I was starving all the time and my blood sugar was out of whack. I did enjoy the exercise videos, though! :D I finally gave up after losing maybe 2 pounds in a month and decided I'd rather be fat and happy than dieting and miserable.

Now, fast forward through my life from my low-fat days in my 20s and early 30s, when I was extremely active and not able to lose more than a couple of pounds, to almost 15 years later, where now I'm fairly sedentary due to health issues and perimenopausal with hormones turning up my body every which way but loose.

Last fall I picked up and read Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. Being hypoglycemic and having the consequent weight problems, the book made perfect sense to me. In order to lose weight I needed to first control my blood sugar, and this needed to be done by cutting out carbohydrates (the very things that for years I thought I needed to maintain blood sugar levels). Low and behold, within the first three months I had lost nearly 20 pounds.

Yes, some people call the Atkins diet imbalanced but honestly it's not. My body needs good amounts of fat and protein. It needs very few carbohydrates. Tipping the scales in this direction has balanced things out quite nicely. :) For people with higher carb tolerances and requirements, their balance will look slightly different than mine. But that's the beauty of it--as I said, the plan is tailored individually, so that in the end each person can find their own perfect balance.

Another thing I might add is that by giving your body the types of nutrients it requires (and again, each person is different on this) food cravings are a thing of the past. I eat now when I'm hungry and my food satisfies me completely. I also eat very healthily with enough variety in my diet that I don't even need vitamin supplements most of the time, and this wasn't something I could do on a low-fat diet because of limited meat intake and no allowed foods like nuts.

I'd also like to add that during my low-fat days I consumed roughly 1200 calories a day. There's no way I shouldn't have been losing weight well, at least during the early stages of the diet before starvation mode would have set in. Following Atkins I eat roughly 10 times my body weight in calories per day. Right now that means I'm eating around 2,000 calories a day, and losing weight at a nice clip.

I've looked through the JohnStone Fitness Forums and find it contains very good information on general fitness. I got very specific swimming/shoulder recommendations from a 17-year old guy with excellent writing skills - so you'd fit right in. :)

I am in general agreement with the "eat clean" diet approach posted there, with possibly a few tweaks. For example, I agree with the previous poster that whole fruit is preferable to fruit juice, which I've cut out of my own diet.

Bear in mind that the nutritional needs of a 15-year-old, strenuously-exercising, growing adolescent are going to be different from, say, a 40ish sedentary individual who is 100 lbs. overweight, both in total calories and fat/protein/carb breakdown. You may find that you can get to a healthy weight just by "eating clean", cutting out junk food, and exercising regularly - I've managed to lose 20 lbs this way in two months. This diet isn't that far off from the Atkins "maintenance" diet, which allows you to tailor carb intaketo the individual's metabolism and level of exercise.

This reminds me of the diagram in DANDR that goes something like this:

Unbalanced Metabolism
X
XX
XXX
+
Balanced Diet
XXX
XXX
XXX
=
Unbalanced Result
X
XX
XXX
XXX
XXX

Unbalanced Metabolism
X
XX
XXX
+
Unbalanced Corrective Diet
XXX
_XX
__X
=
Balanced Result
XXX
XXX
XXX

This diagram made a strong impression on me and illustrates the main thrust of Atkins very well.

atkins works. starving yourself on a low cal diet is not normal or natural, but burning body fat is both natural and normal if you dont overload your system on carbs and sugars.... da

I've seen tons of new sites by professional trainers coming up all of the internet, and preaching the "truth" and promoting their methods as the best thing, or the only way, to lose weight.

But the fact is, if you are a professional trainer, body builder, marathon runner, or into any sort of full time sport, it doesn't matter what diet you follow, you will still lose weight. You can eat nothing but cup cakes, and still lose weight, if you exercise full time, regardless of your diet.

So the issue remains, which diet is healthy, and works without spending your life exercising..... Don't get me wrong, exercise is healthy, but many of us don't have the time, or interest, to to live like professional athletes.

Wa'il

agd-- You're a male teen, which means you've got the metabolism that an older woman wuld kill for. If you reduce your calories, you have a strong chance of losing weight.

An older woman, like your mother, is more likely to have metabolic resistance. I'm only 27, and I can't lose weight on a reduced calorie diet. Atkins, however, helps correct my metabolism and insulin problems, and I lose weight.