Dr. Gregg!
responding to your response to my respose....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm a universal discreditor -- I discredit everything that's out there today as either wrong, misinforming, or containing too little information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting technique. Not very scientific, is it?
Plateaus are a part of all programs out there except mine.
I find that very hard to believe, but anyway, what’s the problem with plateaus? I always come out the other side and start losing wt. Again, so what’s the big deal?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you want to start with the classics then buy yourself the Biology of Human Starvation. It's a text book and is very expensive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So is your book… 65 bucks!!! From your posts and from the content on your web site, my guess is that once you subtract the hot air factor we are probably left with just a few pages. Not trying to flame you here, just posting my honest opinion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My impression differs from yours about the continuance of weight loss on Atkins so there is no way to resolve that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, considering this is a major point in your attack on the viability of the Atkins diet – your posts and your web site are littered with numerous inflammatory and derogatory comments on the Atkins approach, and this is the common theme to most of them – I think you HAVE to come up with something better than your “impression.”
You can’t expect us to take you seriously when you make such claims and then cop out with a sort of “it’s a difference of opinions” excuse. Where’s the evidence for your claims? Of course lots of people fail at Atkins. My guess is that most do so for reasons that have nothing to do with calorie counts.
Just not very scientific, are you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd encourage you, however, to review some of this forums posts to see how often people complain of not losing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just look at the follow up numbers for most of them. I myself posted a few complaints when I hit a big stall – I was worried it wasn’t actually working. But I stuck with it and the pounds started coming off again. And so do most of the others I have stuck with their low carb plan. You have to look a little below the surface sometimes.
If you want to be scientific, that is.
I see many complain of little loss during the induction phase which is amazing as anyone beginning a calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet should lose weight with about 70% of that weight loss arising from water losses. Again, a well-known fact within the extant scientific literature.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There you go again, tossing around science talk as if it proves your point.
I only see a few complaints about not losing wt. during induction A careful and thorough review of the information available on this board shows that. I guess you only see what you are looking for.
In fact, most people do lose wt. during induction and most of that, as I learned myself by reading this board, is water weight. This is normal and is to be expected on ANY diet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What to do if you hit your plateau is not to further lower the carbs to 40, 30, 20, or even 10 grams per day…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You know, I learned this from a number of people here on this very forum. But thanks anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…but to simply eat less or perform more exercise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IF you had said eat more, you’d have been more on target! I have broken through a couple of my plateaus by eating MORE, not less. Of course, I can’t scientifically claim any causality here, who knows what really broke the spell. Could have been any number of things.
But I don’t have to be scientific. I am not selling $65.00 book and claiming I am right and all the other guys are wrong, am I?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, it's not my point of no return, it's yours.
You’re the one who makes the extraordinary claim that there is a stopping point when one is on a low carb, atkins style diet, not me. Once again, where is the proof? I see loads of evidence to the contrary and very little to support your claims, and you don’t seem to be able to back it up. I am patiently waiting for some substance in your replies on this issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I know how to do it as you can see from the photographs I posted on my web site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You look extremely HUNGRY! Heh heh, sorry, couldn’t resist….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can calculate your calorie needs by standard formulas. It's amazing how people reject this information when they're told.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because we still don’t buy your basic premise, due to the loads of evidence to the contrary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn't make this stuff up. The scientific literature is riddled with these facts. I didn't make them facts, Nature did. People should quit killing the messenger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, you DO interpret this stuff, to support your theories and to sell your $65.00 books.
Can’t you admit to the possibility that there may be a little someone going on beyond your beloved calories in/calories out principle? A good scientist should always open to new conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence at hand.
It is a low calorie diet. It's not disguised though. It's all about the metabolic control of food intake. Again, we can't be sure of your count. This has been shown over and over. The average report of food intake is under-reported by 20-50% and even registered dieticians keeping a food diary also under-reported. If you feel I am pulling your leg here go get the test run.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re not really thinking about what you’re saying, are you?
Once again, you are running fast and loose with the science talk. Following your premise logically, if I am under-reporting by 20 to 50 %, then I am eating even more, way more, than I am reporting. So instead of my 2500 to 3000 calories daily, I must be eating somewhere between 3000 to 4000 calories a day. If calories matter to the degree that you are convinced they do, then why, pray tell, have I managed to lose weight?
What “test run” are you referring to?
I use fitday.com to get an idea of my calorie counts, both before and during Atkins, although I can’t be bothered to keep up with it on a daily basis. I think I get a pretty good idea of my intake, both calorie and carb-wise, by recording everything I eat for a set period, and I mean everything. I figure there’s probably a 10% margin of error either way even still.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's all about the numbers and when you have the numbers the explanation, the real one, naturally follows.
The only (ONLY) explanation of weight loss is a calorie imbalance favoring less intake than what you burn. It really is that simple but it is really so complicated because many have made it so. I had to go through all the same stuff you're thinking about and that's how I got these answers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ok, according to the numbers, you intake X calories, you burn Y via activity and exercise and just being alive and Z via Ketosis. In that case, X can be greater than Y but not greater than Y + Z.
To take this further,
If:
X = Y + Z , you stay in place
X < Y + Z, you lose wt.
X > Y + Z, you gain wt.
Seems pretty simple to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And understand, I am not anti-low-carb. Of course, you're not hungry and neither am I. That's the low carb life but if I don't control my calorie intake too, I get fat on low carb. Nothing else is possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think we differ only on the degree of control. I eat till I am satisfied, and I don’t need to worry about calorie counts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Look at Atkins himself -- this is not a lean man or even a man who is of average body fat. When I did his radio show in 1989 we ate dinner first and he ate the baked potato right off my plate (he asked for it first).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That must have been the bizzarro backwards world Dr. Atkins! But seriously, when I get to the point where I am comfortable with my weight, I fully intend to enjoy a baked potato every now and then msyelf!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me know if this peeks your interest. What I can't do however is cover 600 pages of the best info you've ever seen on bodyweight regulation in a discussion board. Every question you've asked and every one you ever thought about is covered in the book.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For 65 bucks, no thanks!
|