Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Bugfixed, Attribution, Atkins
Go ahead and get this one out of the way. Seth Scali writes: "The decision last week that ruled the Greek ban on video games as unconstitutional has been overturned, and a new trial has been ordered. Story from TheRegister is here. Don't take your GBA on that trip to Athens just yet ..."
It takes a strong man. Reader edrock200 submitted the story about a TiVO mod which could expand system capacity to more than 1000 hours of recording. The story as shown says that 9thTee is the card's developer; edrock200 corrects this "'The QuadCard, like the AirNet and TurboNet adapters also sold through 9thTee, were developed by a TiVo user named Nick Kelsey (known as 'jafa' on the TiVo Community Forum.) 9thTee is the distributor - though I don't want to take anything away from them, they have been remarkably supportive of the TiVo community and they deserve kudos for taking the financial risks of selling these add-ons.'
'It is truly amazing what Nick has been able to do with his electronics expertise.'"
Thanks for the clarification!
The Lizard sleeps with one eye open. An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine have updated their article on the recently reported minor security bug in Mozilla [Note Slashdot posting]with the news that a fix has been completed. The bug allowed the webmaster of a site to find out where a user went after their site. The fix means that there are again no known security bugs in Mozilla. Presumably, updates to Mozilla-based browsers (Netscape, Galeon, Chimera etc.) will follow."
What about the all-shrimp-and-chili-paste diet? Schlemphfer writes "A few months back, Slashdot featured a NY Times story that talked about the Atkins diet in glowing terms. This week, the Times has published a Jane Brody article raising serious questions about whether Atkins-style diets are dangerous and unsustainable. Brody is one of the most prominent and respected nutrition journalists, so it's worthwhile to read her take on the matter. Brody's article, which cites some important new research, may be an eye-opening read for Slashdot readers who took the plunge with Atkins back in July." (The NYT requires free registration.)
Suddenly everyone is in deadly earnest. Ian Cumming was one of several people to write with evidence of smileys predating the smileys unearthed by Mike Jones of Microsoft Research. He forwarded an informative message from Brian Dear of Birdrock Ventures, which reads in part:
"On the PLATO system, emoticons were much richer -- made using multiple characters displayed on top of each other. It was possible to type, say, a single character, then press SHIFT-space (which moved the cursor exactly one space backwards), then type another character. The second would display on top of the first. You could keep doing this for multiple characters and create many different faces, beer glasses, martini glasses, all kinds of things. And people peppered their emails and notesfile (PLATO's newsgroups) postings with them all the time."
And what is the PLATO system? The short version is this: PLATO was (is) an education-centered computer system developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Luckily for you, Dear is writing a book about PLATO. His site is fascinating, and the book promises to be as well. Here is a page showing the richness of PLATO emoticons.
Reader Grant Barrett also writes: "The earliest (not first: you can never precisely say which was first) recorded smiley in print discovered so far was found by etymologist and word researcher Barry Popik who posted this message to the email list of the American Dialect Society. He discusses the yellow smiley face which everyone knows, but this particular smiley is the familiar punctuation-based emoticon. (On a side note, he has uncovered some evidence that Harvey Ball *did not* invent the familiar yellow-faced smiley.)"
That reference puts the typographic smiley all the way back to 1953, and as Barrett mentions, was in print rather than online. He also points out that "ESR's Jargon File cites a 'rival claim by Kevin McKenzie, who seems to have proposed the smiley on the MsgGroup mailing list, April 12 1979.'"
But there's only one groove per side ... To all those who thought that the optical-scanning method for playing vinyl was an elaborate joke, note that you can download the creator's code if you'd like. This is not the easy way to do things, but is one way.
The article asks about the long term effects and sustainablity of the diet. No one denies that it works - they just wonder how safe it is in the long run.
RTFA plz.
And closes with Brody saying she thought of it first.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Back in the 80s I was going to UofAlberta and I stumbled upon the plato system. I tired it out a few times and it seemed pretty neat. I remember wondering why I had not heard of it before.
One time I was doing some medical simulation. I remember that I had a patient and no matter what I did he didn't seem to be doing better. I recognized all the medical terms except one so I tried it. I selected Lumbar Puncture and man did his vitals ever drop fast! He was the only patient that died under my care. Actually the correct procedure was to immediately transfer him to a hospital at a major centre.
I've lost fifteen pounds, and am still losing weight. I also have stopped having attacks of hypoglycemia, which used to happen almost every day.
The diet emphasizes low carbohydrate (max 30 grams a day - I can eat half an english muffin a day, and that's about it), and moderately high protein, but really emphasizes eating lots more vegetables.
They don't pretend that it's balanced nutrition, and explicitly say that one must take vitamin and mineral supplements, which I do.
Once I lose all the weight I want, I can increase the amount of carbo I eat, but I don't think I ever want to go back to the level of carbohydrate intake I used to have - a couple of cans of Coca Cola Classic a day along with a heaping plate of spaghetti.
I've tried low-fat diets before and never had any luck with them. Neither have I been able to lose weight purely from exercising since I've been in my 30's (worked in my early 20's though). But I feel better enough with the Protein Power diet that I have started bicycling again for the first time in several years (but I haven't bicycled so much that my weight loss can be attributed to exercise yet).
I weigh 235 pounds, down from 250. My aim is to weigh 180. I'm 5'11".
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
I like to call the Atkins diet the "make yourself sick diet" (someone elses quote, can't remember who - some registered dietitian) - If I remember correct, you survive off of ketones instead of glucose, which makes you somewhat ill and accordingly, you lose your appetite, eat less, and lose weight.
:)
The best diet is one that you can stick to. I have lost ten pounds over 8 weeks without ever feeling hungry or giving up junk food. I did it by following the food guide, walking/cycling, and lifting weights.
Keep in mind, this is a net of ten pounds lost - I have gained muscle mass.
To anyone that wishes to lose weight or just eat healthy, check out the book "The American Dietetic Association's Complete Food and Nutrition Guide" - it dispels a lot of common myths (ie/ you must increase protein consumption to build muscle but not carbohydrate consumption) and is very informative.
If you just want the basics, check out Food Guide Canada or The USDA Food Pyramid for more info.
There are alternatives to these as well. I don't have any links handy, but there are pyramids for a Meditaranian (sp?) and vegetarian diets as well. A lot of vegetarians are actually in terrible health because they don't eat enough protein or are missing vitamins - if you wish to give up animal products, do make sure you read up on a healthy vegetarian diet!
A really good website is also at Ask a Dietitian - lots of good questions answered there. (Check out the icon if you bookmark it - a little penguin
Lastly, if you are interested in weightlifting, do it right! Use an abbreviated routine (no more than three lifting days per week) and stay away from the muscle comics and expensive supplements. I personally will eat an energy bar if I'm on the go, but wasting money on Myoplex is pointless when a chicken sandwich will work just as well.
Check out the misc.fitness.weights faq or the iron page at stumptuous.com for some good tips.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Title: "High-Fat Diet: Count Calories and Think Twice"
Count calories? Everyone realizes that if you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. However, on an Atkins diets, one of the common effects is a loss of appetite, which results in fewer calories in. Ever eat a high fat meal and feel really full? Yup, that's the fat at work. Ever suck a whole bag of chips or a box of cookies down? That's those speedy carbs at work.
"But in a major report last week, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies emphasized the importance of balance of nutrients, with carbohydrates -- starches and sugars -- making up 45 percent to and 65 percent of daily calories"
And this is different from the current party line how exactly? It's not. It's the same thing they've been preaching for 30 years as American obesity has gone through the roof.
One question I'd like to see answered is how long anyone can stay on such a scheme and what happens when you start adding back some of the wholesome foods limited or forbidden on this diet, like sweet corn, grapes, watermelons, potatoes, carrots, beets or oatmeal.
You don't go adding those things back. It's not just a "weight loss" diet, it's a "way of life" diet. It's like saying "How long until a vegetarian starts adding on the bacon, hot dogs, hamburgers", etc. When they do that, they're no longer in that group, and the benefits they see start dropping off.
Why hasn't the government tested it? One possible reason is that it is unlikely to be approved by any review committee, given what is known about the effects of animal fats and cholesterol on the risk of heart disease, strokes and some cancers, as well as accumulating evidence that diets rich in fruits and vegetables and moderate in protein and fat can prevent diseases like high blood pressure, prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
Excuse me? It's think a chicken and egg problem? We can't test the effects of that because we think the effects are bad? If they won't test it, how do we really know what the affects are? The Atkins side says its the high carbs, not the fats, in the diet that are causing the health problems. The western diet has been shown to have a severe negative affect on many non-westerns. Look at Native Americans. Their rates of obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes are huge thanks to this "healthy" high-carb diet.
The Atkins diet is shy on several vital nutrients, including the B vitamins and vitamins A, C and D, antioxidants that slow the effects of aging, and calcium. And, a diet rich in animal protein can draw calcium from the bones, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and hip fractures.
Sigh. Atkins himself tells people to take multivitamins and calcium supplements. There are certain types of foods we simply don't eat often in modern society (organ meats anyone?) so that we miss out on some crucial vitamins.
First, Americans are simply eating more -- an average of 400 calories a day more than they did decades ago.
And why is that? Could it be the fact that with less fat to make them feel full, and they eat more carbs, which leads to them eating even more carbs?
What it all comes down to is the fact we need to test these things rather than repeating the same thing for the past 30 years that IS NOT working. Yes, change hurts, but sometimes it is necessary.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Make sure you drink a lot of water since your kidneys will need it. High protien diets eventually lead to kidney stone formation. Have you ever tried to pass a stone? Trust me, its not a walk in the park. As much as you are trying to lose weight based on the type of food you consume, you must also excercise. I run about 3 miles a day which takes me about 30 minutes to complete. I make sure that I eat whatever I want, but I am capping my calorie intake at 1500 cal/day. That 3 miles of running is about equal to 500 calories burned so in essence i take in only 1000 cal/day. Once I reach the desired weight, I can increase calorie consumption to 2000 cal/day and run every other day to maintain it. I weight 215 at the begining of July. I weight 184 as of this morning.
Whatever you do, just remember... high protien diet MUST MUST MUST be accompanied by lots of water and frequent trips to the bathroom! Good luck.
So instead of listening to science, you believe the marketing/"news" crap that's spouted from the "mainstream" media. Brilliant. I can't wait until all of the Atkins diet people start needing some new kidneys. They ain't gettin' mine.
You'd probably be far healthier just eating normally and getting some exercise. Fsck knows what's in those vitamin supplements...
I eat just as much on the atkins diet as I did before it, if not more. Now instead of consuming calories from carbohydrates, I get them from fat and protein. Fat is much denser in calories than carbohydrates are, unless you're talking about pure sugar.
And hey, what the hell does this paragraph say?
"...with carbohydrates -- starches and sugars -- making up 45 percent to and 65 percent of daily calories and fats, 20 percent to 35 percent." Nice ringrish there, sister. I've tried and tried to decipher what this is supposed to say. Does this mean that carbs make up 45 to 65 percent of your ideal diet, and fats should be 20 to 35 percent? Why the spurious "and"? For that matter, the first occurence of "percent" is unnecessary.
That's not an inaccuracy of fact, it's just an occurrect of stupidity.
The answer: Forever. Some people have been on this diet all their lives, healthily. It's used to control seizures. Do some research before you write an article for the New York Times.
Second, what makes you say those foods are so wholesome? Sweet corn is laden with sugar, hence the sweetness. Watermelons are little more than water and sugar. Potatoes are a ton of ready carbs, they're white starch; All of those carbs hit your bloodstream at the same time and get turned into glucose very rapidly.
What's surprising is that people in countries who ate this way in the first place didn't convince you. A dramatically better article (and not coincidentally one I agree with), What if it's all been a big fat lie? (Also in the NYT, free reg. req. etc) points out that people in Italy and the Carribean who ate a lot of starch (classically) tended towards obesity, and other people (who generally ate meat and veggies) did not. Seems simple to me. Being fat is unhealthy.
"high levels of saturated fats and cholesterol, long associated with heart disease risks."? Let's talk about how high levels of saturated fat and cholesterol became associated with heart disease risks. As per the NYT article I cite above, the last time the government spent our money studying fat, they spend several hundred million dollars trying to prove a link between fat/cholesterol intake and heart disease. They managed to prove only that treating cholesterol with drugs lowered the risk of heart failure. THAT'S IT. From that we got the food pyramid, which puts carbohydrates at the base. Eating tons of ready carbs means your insulin level spikes, and that's hard on the pancreas. And any time insulin levels are above a certain point, you store unused carbohydrates as FAT. You don't have to eat any fat whatsoever to get fat, which I think we all agree is unhealthy.
So in other words, the US government is the last group I'd trust to do a study like that. Last time they tried to prove a link between cholesterol and heart disease, they pushed a bunch of carbs on us and may very well be responsible for early onset diabetes and the american obesity epidemic.
Wow, it sure is a good thing that "they" invented vitamin supplements. Otherwise that might be a real problem, eh?
You know, that's what we were told to do. The government as much as told us that it was fat that made you fat, and we responded by eating carbs. Anything with "low fat" on it sold like, er, hotcakes. Which are made out of refined flour, which is the same as sugar once you have digested it.
This is horseshit too. While you are in ketosis, you do not store fat. When you have unburned fat, you remove it from your body by an ancient process known today (medically) as a bowel movement. You don't gain it as weight.
Hence the Atkins diet makes it completely unimportant to count your calories, except to make sure you have enough. As long as you don't eat carbs, your insulin level stays low, which means you don't leave the state of ketosis. Ketosis also has benefits to health, including slowing the rate of lean muscle loss. Furthermore, as I alluded to above, the reduced glucose levels inhibit stroke activity, and the reduced load on the pancreas dramatically reduces the risk of diabetes.
Mankind did not evolve to eat carbohydrates in any significant quantity. We grew up eating meat, vegetable-type plants which are not generally high in carbs (Except from fiber, which is indigestible), and limited quantities of carbohydrates.
I want to know which cracker and chip company commissioned this FUD.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I actually started on the Atkins diet as a result of that NYT article. I have been wondering how healthy this diet is long term so I turned to this article with interest. Unfortunately the writer apparently never bothered to actually find out the specifics of the Atkins diet.
Some misconceptions:
* Can't eat many vegetables such as carrots. Actually there are three different phases of the diet, and only on the first and shortest phase is this true.
* Lacking in vitamins. Again this is mainly true of the first phase and less so in the later phases. The Atkins book *strongly* emphasizes the need for taking a wide range of vitamins. Only someone who never read the book could not have noticed this -- vitamin taking is an integral part of the diet! And at any rate now that I am on the long term maintaining part of the diet, I doubt that I am lacking in vitamin intake now.
* The diet is boring and focused mainly on saturated fats meat (ie beef). Again, only someone who has not looked into this diet seriously could make such a claim. Ironically, as a result of this diet I have been eating much *more* vegetables than I would have otherwise. I've also been eating a wider range of foods.
But even more important than that is that she never directly comes to terms with the first articles main theses -- it is an outright scandal that the Atkins test has never been properly tested. Her response is just the sarcastic:
"Why hasn't the government tested it? One possible reason is that it is unlikely to be approved by any review committee, given what is known about the effects of animal fats and cholesterol on the risk of heart disease, strokes and some cancers, as well as accumulating evidence that diets rich in fruits and vegetables and moderate in protein and fat can prevent diseases like high blood pressure, prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes."
In other words the first NYT article was right -- the establishment already knew what was the correct answer and weren't about to let an inconvenient thing like science get in the way! The problem this poses for me is that when I try to find truly, objective scientific points of view -- they are hard to find if they exist at all in the world of nutrition!
The current version of Mozilla in Unstable is 1.1-1. See the package page. It's been there for a week now.
/etc/apt/sources.list: ./
If you'd like the packages faster, to get the maintainer's "not quite ready to check into Unstable" mozilla packages (which are still quite stable, just haven't gone through as much testing), add the following line to your
deb http://pandora.debian.org/~kitame/mozilla/
1.1's been available from there for at least two weeks now.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, that is not accurate. The decision of the court hasn't been overturned! The case will just move to the appeals court and we will see what happens there.
The only court in Greece which is allowed a final decision on a subject, which can't be overturned by someone else, is the supreme court. So, until the case comes to the supreme court, it isn't closed.
Good to know that the guy finally released the source code. It was depressing watching all the "elite" slashdotters on here blasting his idea away, debasing him with a bunch of random equations and "laws of physics". Now that it's open source, you can all move your feet to your mouth :)
Lordfly
hookers and grits.
What I'm wondering, is with the overwhelming number of posts saying, "I'm on the Atkins diet! I'm thin, trim, good-looking, and healthy!", is the Slashdot audience really such a fat, lazy, gullible, stupid bunch, or are there a lot of people who work for Atkins posting here? This is very, very wierd.
Hehe, no I mean like this one
They are heavily biased (ie/ Last I heard, Muscle Media is owned by Bill Phillips, who owns EAS, a supplement company) and have some insane routines that would easily be overtraining for someone that's not on roids.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
That's why they said "No known security bugs"
Which is still an enviable record.
I can think of thou--er...several bugs in IE, starting with the first by--er...starting with Microsoft's unwillingness to deal with the issue unless it was getting bad press.
What's this Submit thingy do?
That's like 20 lbs a month. IANANutritionalist, but I hear that losing more than 10 lbs a month is too much of a shock to your system.
Think about it--you can just stop eating and lose 41 lbs in a couple weeks. It doesn't make it healthy. You should really see your doctor and make sure everything's going okay.
c-hack.com |
Are you overweight, and lack the motivation to get some exercise? Have you tried all the other diets out there, and none of them seem to work? Do you get jealous when you see pictures of Ethiopians and Auschwitz prisoners? Do you think to yourself "if only I was oppressed, I could finally look like a supermodel, like I've always wanted?"
Well have I got the diet for you! It's called "The Gold Star Diet." Here's how it works: for just $2999.95/month, you get a personal trainer to follow you around all day, not allowing you to eat anything but stale bread crusts and moldy soup! He'll curse at you, strip you naked, shave your head, and call you by a number! Pretty soon, you'll lose all your self-respect! That is, if you're one of the few who starts out this diet with any. But that's not all! You also get 14 free mirrors to hang up around your house, so you'll never forget how imperfect you are!
Sickening.
c-hack.com |
Interesting STUFFe wycenter_timeline.html
From http://fitfat.ctvnews.com/interactive/timeline/ch
VERY INTERESTING:
1997 - The American magazine Psychology Today's body image survey finds that 15 per cent of women and 11 per cent of men in the U.S. said they'd be willing to give up at least five years of their life in exchange for the ability to reach their desired weight. That same year Redux or Fen-phen is taken off the market after studies link it to heart valve disease.
EARLIER HIGH-FAT LOW-CARBS DIETS:
1900 to 1920 - Although unconfirmed, there is reason to believe that TAPEWORM diet pills were marketed in the U.S. during the first two decades of the 20th century. Women allegedly swallowed "magic" diet pills that were actually TAPEWORMS in capsules. After they had shed enough pounds, women would take deworming pills to rid themselves of the parasite. (!!!)
1961 - Herman Taller's Calories Don't Count, which recommends a diet high in fat and low in carbohydrates is a best seller in the U.S.
1967 - Physician Irwin Stillman publishes The Doctor's Quick Weight Loss Diet. He advocates a high-protein, low-carb diet, but includes a recommendation to drink 10 eight ounce glasses of water per day to combat "water loss." Twenty million people try it.
1972 - Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest coins the terms "junk food" and "empty calories" in reference to candy, snacks and soda.
Snapple introduces a new bottled fruit drink that is marketed as an healthier alternative to soft drinks.
And Robert Atkins publishes Diet Revolution which advocates eating all the fat you want as part of a high protein, low-carb diet. It quickly becomes a bestseller. (In 1992, he re-issues pretty much the same exact book.)
1982- Jane Fonda's Workout video is credited with creating the phenomenon of exercise videos. After selling millions of copies the tape was discontinued by the manufacturer after many of Jane's moves were found to be unsafe (!!!!)
1995 - North America sees a resurgence of low-carb, high-protein diets. (Back to this again!)
Also interesting : Bulemia first discussed in 1926, Anorexia brought to light in 1983 when a celebrities dies on stage; in 1929, Candy TV Ads say "candy is good for you."
Cover your eyes and click this link!
Strangely enough, the diet proposed above espouses the very thing that various studies have shown to be healthy: whole grains, lots of fruits and vegetable, lean protein (from lean meats and legums), and some amount of "healthy" fats such as monounsaturated oils.
The biggest problem (in my opinion) is that people have a phobia about moderation. They want foods to be either "good" or "bad." For years people thought that fat was bad and instead pigged out on no fat desserts. I remember an episode when I was on an airplane, and the woman next to me told me that the no-fat cookie that we had been given was good. It looked disgusting to me, so I offered it to her. Instead of accepting it, she went off on a tirade about how it was perfectly okay for me to eat it because it fat-free and cholesterol-free and therefore was sin-free and guilt-free, while inwardly I was thinking that it was still full of sugar, and still looked disgusting. Those same kind of people also looked at me funny any time I ate nuts or avocados because they were bad "high-fat" foods.
Now, instead, people have taken the opposite approach and are banning anything with carbs. My dad has seen fried pork rinds being advertised as a carb-free diet food!
There are clearly health issues that go along with either extreme approach (e.g. diabetes and tryglicerides with simple carb diets and kidney and GI problems with high protein diets), but it seems people would rather cycle between the extremes than try to find a more sensible middle ground.
Sorry if this is a bit lengthy, but this is an issue that has bugged me for a long time.
--Exito
I have always thought it very odd that some people have to make an effort to drink more water.
I don't know why, but I have been thirsty all my life. Even since I was a small child. I constantly crave water. So I drink it, gallons per day. That's where the Coca Cola I mentioned above comes in. I also pee with great frequency.
It happens that one of the warning signs of diabetes is uncontrollable thirst. I've been tested a number of times for diabetes and have been found to be normal.
The last time I had my blood sugar checked I brought up my hypoglycemia with the nurse who tested me, and she said to eat a good lunch and have a couple snacks in the afternoon, which helps when I remember it but never made the problem go away. The only thing that did help was to increase the amount of protein in my diet and (ironically) reducing the carbohydrates.
I am never without a beverage at hand. Unfortunately, this is often coffee which I know is bad for me, especially in the quantity I drink it (2 or 3 pots a day). But I drink lots of pure water too. (Note that I was drinking just as much coffee before I started losing weight - I weighed 250 for about seven years.)
Many people on diets drink artificially sweetened sodas, but I find artificial sweeteners to taste foul. Nowadays when I'm out driving or something and stop into a convenience store for something to drink, I buy a mineral water.
I recently discovered some flavored but completely unsweetened carbonated waters from Poland Springs. They are flavored with the essential oils of various fruits and berries, like mandarin orange and raspberry.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
while the report actually says
The report goes on to develop minimum carbohydrate reccomendations explicitly based on the need to avoid ketosis. Now, that may well be a worthwhile goal, and there are clearly some problems associated with ketosis (such as kidney stones), but one can hardly use that report as another, independent reason for rejecting high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets.
You! Yeah, you! That was irony, fuckwit. You know who you are.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
But the artificially produced vitamin C is subtly different, and, in fact has measurable oxidizing and mutagenic effects (sorry, it's PDF. There are also newer and better studies if you search hard enough).
Similar results have been noted with artificial beta-carotene. The manufacturers are modifying the supplements now, but it gives an idea of how little we understand the nutrition processes.
Incidentally, artificial vitamin C first came under scrutiny in the mid-80's, when it was discovered that it did not prevent scurvy, but fruit-derived vitamin C did.
Lastly, it's pretty well known now that, while vitamins and minerals are very important, there are a lot of phytochemicals in the plant-based foods that are extremely important to health, and we only know what a fraction of them are. They can only load the supplements with what we already know about.
A witty saying is worth nothing - Voltaire
I must have debates on this diet at least 3 times a week and most people that I have these debates with don't really know anything about it (hmmmm...sounds kinda like /.) The high protien, low carb part of this diet is really only for the first couple of weeks. The purpose of this 'induction' period is to train your body to start burning fat instead of carbs - like it's supposed to. After your body has relearned what to process for energy, you are supposed to gradually add carbs back into your diet.
My wife has been heavier set most of her life and has worked VERY hard (LARGE amounts of excercise and watching everything she eats) to try and control this as long as I have known her - mostly to know avail (anybody that didn't know her would never believe she's a fitness nut). She also had reservations about this diet (for many of the same reasons stated in the above article), even after a good friend of ours started showing excellent results after being on it for a couple months (we're still wondering who stole the other half of that fat man =). Her first attempt was too try and integrate some of the ideas into her current diet but she saw no results and kinda gave up on it. After some persistance from our friend, and after I did a bunch of research on the net, we finally got her to just try it fully. Within three weeks she was definitely seeing results and not all of it was weight loss. She also has (had) problems with Rosacia (adult acne) but she hasn't had a flare-up since being on the diet. She has also had irregular periods almost all her adult life but since starting the diet she's been on time - to the day! Her energy level is also completely different. She has always been a high energy person but it was like a fake energy (just do something to be doing something), now she's has the same type of energy but she can actually focus it now - she also actually seems to make more intelligent decisions and doesn't fly off the handle over stupid things as much either (because she thinks about it first).
My opinion is that this diet, like any diet, may not work for everybody but for some people it's exactly what they need. If you are overweight you're already unhealthy anyways so I don't think trying this diet for a few weeks is going to be any more unhealthy for you than lugging around all that extra weight.
LRJ
The original article on the Atkins diet from the times makes some very valid points, however I think it misleads the reader in one respect: by showing evidence that the low-fat high-carb food pyramid is flawed and then concluding that the logical alternative is to eat a high-fat low-carb diet, a la Dr. Atkins.
In reality, studies have shown that both high-carb and high-fat diets can lead to health problems.
Keep in mind, the original food pyramid myth was promoted because of discoveries during the Vietnam war that American 18 year olds had tons of plaque built up on their arteries and 18 year-old Vietnamese did not. The conclusion that was drawn was that the American high-fat diet was the cluprit. Hence, the food pyramid as we know it.
However, if you think about what the research has actually shown, the ideal diet is as follows:
Lots of vegetables, some high-fiber grains, and a small amount of meat, preferably fatty fish.
Now think for a moment about the nutritional conditions that existed during the majority of human evolution. We were engineered by evolution to consume a diet very much like the ideal diet described above. Of course, exercise is critical to health as well, and our ancestors got plenty of that in the course of their daily lives.
Amazing magic tricks
How can you write an article arguing against use of the Atkins diet and miss the obvious and deadly mental health problem it presents?
You can't drink beer for two weeks!!!
I'd rather be a fatass than sober...
I'm not going to rehash all of the information he gives, except to say that this diet has worked wonders for me, allowing me to reach goals of weight loss without sacrificing strength.
To rebut the article. Ketones have never made be 'nauseus'. Instead, I find that when ketogenic dieting my hunger is blunted, not removed. The swings that sugar and insulin cause in my body go away. That alone is worth the effort.
One interesting thing to note about dietary issues in general is the evolution of man vs. the evolution of our diet.
For a moment, toss out everything any diet "expert" has ever told you. Toss out the USDA's damn pyramid. Look at biology. Add up these few, relatively simple facts.
Step in the WayBack Machine(tm) and look at much more simple times. The human body and its metabolism is geared towards periods of relative "feast" and "famine." Seeing as the primary use for fats is fatty acid precursors, the sources of energy are protein and carbohydrates. Carbs are really effecient foods, but are usually scavenged. (fruits, berries, tubers, etc.) Sources of protein are usually hunted.
The way the body's metabolism flips between a glucose-centric pathway to a ketone-centric pathway makes perfect sense. In times of feast (abundant carbohydrates), use the carbs, storing everything away that is in excess. In times of famine, catabolize the fats into their building blocks and get energy from them (while looking for more berries.)
Homo sapiens and its relatives have existed for thousands of years on this metabolic model. Evolution would have it that it is the most successful model for the given environment. Things stay pretty matched while things follow the format of:
Humans hunt the tiger.
Humans catch the tiger.
Tiger eats a human.
Humans go look for smaller tigers and potatoes.
(ie. food chain struggle, varied diet)
Fast forward to today: Humans hunt McDonalds. A Big Mac gives little struggle (unless you try to fit the entire thing in your mouth at once).
Our food has evolved into a carbohydrate-rich diet because that's what the USDA said was good for us. On that note, carbohydrates are also the cheapest form of food, so when the Gub'ment is handing out subsidized food to everyone (public schools, hospitals, army bases, FBI cafeterias, etc), it would make sense to hand out carbohydrates. Abundant, cheap, energy-rich? C'mon. It makes perfect economic sense. But it doesn't follow nature. Nature would have us eat fewer carbohydrates and more protein, like our ancestors did.
The Atkins diet is simply putting things back into a biological perspective. Most criticisims of the diet focus too much on the induction part of it. Getting the person with a fistfull of twinkies back on the proper metabolic path is an awesome feat of biochemistry and cell biology, but it happens when you go low/no carbs. No one, including Dr. Atkins, says that the induction part of the diet is The Proper Diet.
One need only look at the effect of morbid obesity on life span to say that any negative effects of the induction phase of the diet are minute in comparison to the effects of hauling an extra 100 lbs of fat. Perspective is needed. It's like worrying about whether your 8-character root password has suffecient random characters in it, when you're running the La735t 57@ck 0v3rflo\/\/ on your apache server.
Finally, why rely on other people to digest all of this information (even me) and put their own (perhaps political) spin on it?
For those who wish to delve into the more archane, I suggest you go to NCBI and do some literature searches on the ketogenic diet. You'll see that there are some positive neurobiological and hormonal impacts that it has.
National Center for Biotechnology Information (Medline)
Search for some of these keywords (each line together):
ketosis ketogenic
ketosis epilepsy
ketosis protein sparing
TiFox
-- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
Dynamic Fidgeting(TM)!
"It's what made a Man out of Mack!" (anyone else remember that one?)
I fidget constantly, in every possible way, and I find it an
excellent way to exercise whilst one is stuck performing boring tasks.
I'm always amazed at how much stronger I seem to be than my peers who actually exercise normally.
Maybe it's genetics, but this body performs brilliantly given its' 48 yr
history, and all the abuse that I've heaped upon it.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
I'm a card-carrying geek from way back but I will admit, here in front of Dog and everybody online that I have never been even slightly geek-like in one critical sense. :)
To wit, I have always been in fantastic shape.
I ski, hike, dance and practice various forms of martial arts and I watch what I eat - voila' - physical perfection!
But a couple of years ago I gained a couple extra pounds over the holiday season and couldn't lose it!!
I mean yeah, I'm a little older now but wtf? I wasn't eating any different that I could see, exercised the same etc.
Now don't get me wrong, ten pounds is no big deal. I'd laugh my ass off if somebody were obsessing over that, but after all these years of martial arts and dance I can feel a difference as little as 5 pounds and damn it, I wanted it gone!
So I ate less and worked out harder.
To no avail.
To tell you the truth it's been driving me nuts until I happened to talk to my mother and the conversation turned to my grandmother who was diagnosed w/diabetes awhile back.
Her doctor put her on an "experimental diet" and she lost about 30# and all indicators of diabetes disappeared!! She's been on it for a couple of years now and is in great shape. I should tell you my grandmother has been fat since she was a teen and has never lost more than about 15 pounds and it's always come back as soon as she blinked. So her losing 30 and keeping it off is a minor miracle!
Turns out that diet was Atkins (and yes, you do eat carbs, read the damn book!).
So I laughed and figured what the heck, I'd try it. I've only been on it for about 3 weeks so far but I've lost 5 of the pounds that wouldn't go away and I have an energy level I haven't had for years (like, um, since not too long before I gained those 10 pounds, actually).
So don't knock it 'till you try it!
Fat boy...
I personally think we'd be better off trying the Drop Dead Diet .. same results as Atkins, only a lot quicker.
Finding God in a Dog
Read the book. Your friends did not do Atkins. It's not a diet, it's forever. You don't go on Atkins for awhile to lose some pounds. The whole point is to change the way you eat forever.
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
Unless you have some sort of cron-job auto-running apt-get update for you periodically, apt won't automatically update its list of packages until you tell it to.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Totally, complete FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD.
s is.html and http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/fatty-acid-ox idation.html)
I lost 40 pounds through moderate diet and excercise, and kept it off for 4 years on a 90% vegetarian diet with plenty of carbs. I only gained it back when I started working insane ours and had to cut exercise. Even at 250 pounds now (and losing again, thanks to exercise), my heart rate is low, my cholesterol is below 160, and by blood pressure has never tested over 130/80 (typically lower)
Frankly, I don't see how the 'industry' has any more to gain that Dr Atkins does through the reverse position. I'm not doubting the validity of his 'diet', which involved STRUCTURED, REGULAR MEALS AND EXCERCISE.... He could have you eating buttered white bread 3 times a day at regular intervals with exercise, and you would lose weight. The only thing that will help you in the long run is a commitment to living healthfully.
As for your comments:
FACT: The foods that you are often encouraged to eat the most of, are the foods that are the easiest and the cheepest to produce. They are also the ones that MAXIMIZE profit for that industry.
What is your point?? That companies encourage you to eat their highest profit products is obvious.
Are you saying the food industry is suppressing Atkins because he is threatening there highest profit lines of business? That is baloney.
FACT: Fat in your diet, or [sic]protien does not put fat on your body - carbohydrates do. Period. End of discussion.
http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/ (in particular: http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/lipid-synthe
Read these links. You can eat whatever you want as long as you keep your blood sugar down (ie, eating nothing but fat is completely equal to exercise+low cal diet as both will keep insulin levels down, but only one accelerates your metabolism and excercises your heart and lungs...)
FACT: Anyone who says otherwise has either bought the industry hype, or has outright been bought by them.
Right.... remember to put on your tin foil hat. Again, if you can't support your argument, attack your adversaries...
FACT: Benign dietary ketosis (NOT the same thing as ketoacidosis) is the ONLY WAY your body removes fat stores.
COMPLETELY FALSE AND RIDICULOUS. Ketogenesis only occurs when acetyl-CoA levels exceeds the capabilites of the TCA (Krebs Citric Acid) cycle to utilize it. Granted, it is a SYMPTOM of high levels of fatty acids in the blood (rapid release of fatty acids from adipose (fat) cells), but it is certainly not the only method. Your body can easily remove fat stores through the following process: Low levels of glucose in the blood stimulate the release of glucagon, glucagon causes a reactions in adipose cells which activates hormone sensitive lipase, triggering a reaction converting the triacylglycerols stored in the adipose cells to fatty acids and glycerol which diffuse into the blood, and all cells are totally capable of passively absorbing fatty acids from the blood and converting them to acetyl-CoA in the cytoplasm via Fatty acid + ATP + CoA -------> Acyl-CoA + PPi + AMP.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
I don't recall that Atkins ever calls for a NO carb diet at all, even during induction, which is one of my big complaints with people skeptical of the diet - they hear a few choice things that make it sound really bad and harp on them as if they are gospel.
The other thing is that Atkins is not the only low-carb advocate. There are plenty of other more moderate plans.
Point 1: None of them, AFAIK, advocate NO carbs.
Point 2: None of them, AFAIK, advocate high fat (while they may claim it's not as bad as people may think, none of them tell participants to eat lots of saturated fats). In fact, most go into detail about which fats are OK and which are not.
In other words, contrary to what even the article advocating Atkins said, Atkins never advocated eating a pound of bacon with a stick of butter melted on top. And when people give such examples it only shows their closed mind to the subject, where the gub-ment, and it's low fat crusade, can't be questioned because we've been doing it for so long.
When my nutritionist actually explained the low-carb theory to me, it made more sense then the low-fat theory, and I'd been a low-carb skeptic for a long time.
BTW, for me - it's 60 pounds in six months. I have more muscle mass then when I started. Yes, it's because I've been exercising, too, but any idiot can tell you working out is better than not working out, diet aside. Having lost all the weight helps me be able to work out.
And finally, anyone who thinks low-carb is unhealthy can answer me this: it's the only way I've been able to lose weight, so would I have been healthier 60 pounds ago and with the acid reflux disorder that I had back then?
There is also the case for cholesterol. Yes, it's a problem, but the truth is that long term effects of low-carb often include lower cholesterol. Why? Because your body produces 80% of the cholesterol in your blood stream, it's not ingested. How does it create it? The liver. What prompts the creation? Carbs.
Stupid sexy Flanders.