Hackers On Atkins

`Sean writes "Salon.com has published a story about Hackers on Atkins. Although going on a diet is the last thing on the minds of the stereotypical geek basking in the ambient radiation of multiple monitors for 15 hours per day, many hackers have been embracing Atkins because utilizing low-carb methods to modify the metabolism is analogous to hacking and overclocking the body. Others have been combining Atkins with other systems, such as John Walker's The Hacker's Diet. I've personally lost a hundred pounds so far and will toss in the obligatory if I can do it, anyone can ism."

Comments

diet? bollocks!

[flok]

what about binding a laptop to your hometrainer and just not eating too much?

Re:diet? bollocks!

[`Sean]

Ha! Well, I've thought about it. But seriously, I tried the "just eat less" approach. It didn't work. I tried a low-fat 1200 calorie-per-day approach for a few months quite a while ago and actually gained weight. Everyones' metabolism is different. Now that I've switched to Atkins I pull in well over 2500 to 3500 calories per day and lose more weight now than any other diet I've tried before.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

Speaking from personal experience, it is hard to type while running on a treadmill.

YLFI

Re:diet? bollocks!

[beamdriver]

Ha! Well, I've thought about it. But seriously, I tried the "just eat less" approach. It didn't work. I tried a low-fat 1200 calorie-per-day approach for a few months quite a while ago and actually gained weight.

Bollocks. Nobody can gain weight on 1200 calories a day unless they're under 90 pounds or completely bedridden. What you mean is that you, like most people, were fooling yourself about how many calories you were eating. I'll bet you a that if I locked you in a room with no access to outside food and fed you on 1200 calories worth of bread, pasta and potatoes a day, you'd lose weight.

Atkins, and other reduced carb diets work. I lost over 85 pounds and my wife lost 40. She did Atkins and I designed my own diet based on Atkins and others ideas.

The reason they work is not beacause there's some sort of cool hack involved, but because you're almost certainly eating less calories. Examine your average hacker diet, all the high calorie, energy dense foods are either straight carbohydrates (like soda or candy) or carbs and fat (donuts, chips, etc.). Eliminate them, and you've just reduced your daily calorie intake by a large amount. Yes, you add back in some protein and fat calories, but it's actually hard to eat that much straight fat and protein. And fat and protein are slower to digest, so they make you feel more full and satisfied for a longer period of time.

For more information than you'd ever want to know about low carb dieting, pick up The Ketogenic Diet by Lyle McDonald.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[`Sean]

Nobody can gain weight on 1200 calories a day unless they're under 90 pounds or completely bedridden. What you mean is that you, like most people, were fooling yourself about how many calories you were eating.

If you say so. I just know what works for me and my personal experience. When I was religiously logging every single calorie and ounce of water that went into my body when I switched to Atkins, I found that 2000 calories per day gave me a weight loss of 1.2 pounds per week and 3000 to 3500 calories per day gave me a weight loss of 2 to 3 pounds per week. Add exercise to 3000 calories per day and I'd jump up to 3.5 to 4 pounds per week. This is well documented in various Atkins and low-carb forums where people have to increase their daily calories to get their bodies out of starvation mode.

I also know that, four or five years ago, I tried the 1200 calorie per day thing and gained weight. When I increased my caloric intake, I stopped gaining weight. At that time I was logging every single calorie and gram of fat using Excel spreadsheets so I wasn't fooling myself. Like I said, everyones' metabolism is different and each person reacts to fats, carbs, and calories differently. Atkins isn't for everyone (it didn't work for my wife at all), but it has worked wonders for me.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[fenix down]

Since when have we needed anything other than the Fired From Lucent Three Years Ago and Stuck as the Cashier at Borders Part Time and Can Either Cancel the DSL or Cut Down to Two Bowls of Ramen a Day Diet?

Re:diet? bollocks!

[`Sean]

I bailed from Lucent a few short months before they shut down the Allentown offices. Since I'm on Atkins I have a few spare boxes of Ramen I could send you...what's your address? ;)

Re:diet? bollocks!

[saden1]

The key is to turn your fat into muscle so you can enjoy any type of food. My resting metabolisms takes care of any junk food I might eat. I don't believe in Atkins diet, but I do believe in eating meat, especially poultry. I find that chicken keeps you full and helps you build muscle since it is packed with protin.

If your are not exercise and lifting wights, don't expect to keep those pounds off.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[bluethundr]

The reason they work is not beacause there's some sort of cool hack involved, but because you're almost certainly eating less calories.

Well, to use your term to your post I say "bullocks". If you've read Atkins' book, you'd know that it is a qualitative, not a quantitative diet. That is to say, you can eat as much of the permitted foods on the diet you are allowed and none of NONE of the baned foods and you will lose weight. It's all a matter of regulating the blood's insulin levels *NOT* regulating calories.

In my own personal experience calorie regulated diets do NOT work, but carb-regulated diets like Atkins certainly do. Your body stores carbohydrates in your bloodstream and in your muscles. When you deplete your body's store of carbs by restricting yourself to 20gm of carb per day (ridiculously low!) during what is known as the "induction diet" (this phase is only meant to last about two weeks) you are depleting that store of carbohydrates so that your body will turn to the next logical source of energy which is fat. And since and Atkins dieter will typically be taking in more protein than most other diets one is less likely to suffer the deterioration of muscle tissue that is likely to occur under calorie restricted diets. You can literally eat yourself SILLY of the permitted foods and still lose weight on Atkins, which is why your claims that there is calorie restriction to blame for the weightloss is ludicrous! Without going into exhausitve detail, I can say that I may eat a plate of 20 or so chicken wings with bleue cheese dressing and top it off with a bowl full of whipped cream for desert (very low in carbs, but not in calories!) every noght and I will lose weight!

The only drawback to the diet that the good doctor acknowledges is that the diet as designed is typically lacking in many of the essential vitamins and minerals that you get from eating fruits and vegetables while not on the diet. For that he recommends using a dietary suppliment. But restricted calories? Dude, seriousely. Read the book.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[AmiMoJo]

For those doubting the low calorie system, consider this. Your body needs a certain number of calories per day to operate. An average for a male office worker is supposed to be about 2000 per day. If you eat less (say, 1200), there is no way your body can possibly store any of that, because it needs to be used to keep you alive.

This is what fat is for - it's backup calories to use in case you suddenly find you can't get enough. So, when you are only getting 1200, your body has no choice but to burn some fat, otherwise it will starve to death.

My own personal experience is that I have so far lost 13 Kg (um... 29lbs?) in about six or seven months by cutting down on calories. At the moment I alternate between one day on reduced calories and one day on normal calories (about 2000 for me, but you need to find your own level). By eating 2000 on day it stops by body thinking I'm starving and I feel less hungry.

One other thing that I found helped was multi-vitamin and mineral tablets (including iron and zinc). I don't know if it really works if it's just a placebo, but when I get enough of all that stuff from a tablet each day I seem to feel less hungry, as my body craves them less.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[JAgostoni]

Did you try exercise? Serious question, not trying to flame here.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[`Sean]

Did you try exercise? Serious question, not trying to flame here.

Yes...while I was on the low-calorie diet I was slowly gaining weight when I wasn't exercising. When I was exercising (walking a mile each day) I stopped gaining, but I wasn't losing. I was around 330 pounds at that time. My average food intake was a Slim Fast for breakfast, a salad for lunch, and a salad with low-fat lunchmeat for dinner. This went on for two or three months and I never dropped a single pound.

Later, when I switched to Weight Watchers low fat/calorie and around a 2000 calorie intake with hardcore exercise (1-2 miles each day, plus 45 minutes of cardio or 45 minutes of lifting), I dropped down to around 295/300 and hit a brick wall. I stopped losing weight and the times my trainer checked body fat percentage she said that I wasn't gaining much muscle mass.

When I switched to Atkins, I immediately started dropping 1-2 pounds per week and, by adding exercise (5 miles cardio or 45 minutes of lifting), that number jumped to 2-4 pounds per week. I've dropped from 295 or 300 to 222 while on Atkins.

So, the first 30 pounds (330 down to 300) was on Weight watchers but I stayed at 300 for almost two and a half years before I switched to Atkins this January.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[`Sean]

And, on a side note, on Atkins I'm gaining muscle mass while losing weight! I'm using a Tanita scale for all readings and my body fat percentage has been slowly but steadily dropping as I lose weight.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[Dastardly]

Your body needs a certain number of calories per day to operate. An average for a male office worker is supposed to be about 2000 per day. If you eat less (say, 1200), there is no way your body can possibly store any of that, because it needs to be used to keep you alive.

I am not an expert, but the body is surprisingly adaptable. Your metabolism will attempt adjust to burning 1200 calories. Especially without exercise. Your body will try to adjust its calorie burn rate as close to 1200 calories as possible. You will be more tired, and will especially run into to problems if you take that 1200 calories in say 2 600 calorie meals, due to the wide change in blood sugar.

Aerobic exercise is critical. It will help keep your metabolism at a higher level. And, spreading out the calories in order to prevent massive changes in blood sugar will help also.

And, my personal experience was with going to 1600 calories a day. With 3 - 3000yd swim workouts a week. I dropped about 2.5lbs a week for about 4 weeks before deciding that was a little fast. I increased my calories to about 1900 which slowed things down to about 1.5 lbs/week. And lost about 20 lbs using that method.

Re:diet? bollocks!

[RetsamYthgimla]

I know it's been pointed out in numerous other hosts, but the body really can survive long-term on less than 2000 calories a day, and in the short-term can certainly burn far less than 2000 calories a day. Part of it is genetic, and part of it is environmental.

Some people natually have a low basal metabolic rate, meaning that if they sat on their ass all day, occassionally shifting positions to avoid bedsores or to go to the bathroom, they'd probably burn 1000-1500 calories a day, regardless of caloric intake. These people get fat very easily.

Now even your "average" person with a basal metabolic rate sufficient to burn 2000 calories while sitting on their ass can induce a lower BMR by starving themselves. The body goes into a protective mode, and lowers the BMR. In addition, the body, either through hormones or low blood sugar/fat levels, induces a state of laziness whereby the person moves sluggishly, conserving a maximum of energy.

If you can't get your head around this concept, try the following experiment. Drink just 16-24 ounces of water, once a day, and eat foods low in water content. Your body will quickly (couple days, tops) adapt to this water "starvation" diet, and you will both sweat and urinate less often. You may be able to go a day or two at a time without peeing, though it well start to smell.

Also, watch your weight. You should begin to gain a few pounds. You're taking in less weight of water, and you're gaining weight. That's because your body is storing the water.

Now, once your body gets to its maximum waterlogged weight, start drinking like mad. Not all at once, either. Drink 8-16 ounces of water, 8-16 times a day. Aim for about a gallon of water (twice the recommended 8 8-oz glasses a day).

In the first day or two, you'll probably lose about 3-4 pounds. How can that be? 3-4 pounds of fat is 10,000-15,000 calories. You couldn't burn that much in a marathon! 3-4 pounds of carbs or protein is still a good 5,000-7,000 calories. Assuming you're still eating 2,000-3,000 calories a day like normal, you'd have to burn 7,000-10,000 calories. So how'd you lose 3-4 pounds in a day or two, when you were eating your normal food intake and drinking several pounds of water? You just pissed and sweated it all away. You pissed and sweated half a gallon more water than you were drinking!

You body can store and conserve that which is scarce, and gets rid of what it doesn't need when it's plentiful (the extra water stretches tissue and adds weight, so in general it's not a good idea to store a lot of it if it's plentiful. Luckily, this isn't a conscious decision, mother nature figured this one out millions of years ago).

If your body can learn how to run on less than half of the water it normally uses, how far of a stretch is it to think that it can conserve calories, even to the point of using fewer calories than your already low-calorie diet is providing?

Now don't get me wrong. There is a limit. For some people, because of genetics, they can't get below 1800 or 1500 calories, even when eating only 600-1000 cals a day. IANANutritionist, so I don't know the exact number, but I suspect the average person, if not overly active (i.e. you're not a construction worker, you're a desk clerk) could get their calorie burning rate down to in the 1000-1400 range. Meaning some would lose weight on 1200 cals/day, and some could gain (though certainly not more than a pound every couple weeks; the rest would be water weight, because you're probably making the mistake of drinking less while eating less. Drink more, and the water weight comes off as well).

And as has been mentioned, the body is highly adaptable. Meaning that, assuming you're taking multi-vitamins and getting enough fiber, amino acids, and omega 3's and 6's, you're body would adjust to the low-calorie diet, and would no longer consider it starvation level. Then your body would stop trying to store fat, and your BMR would rise again (though not as high as before the low-cal diet), and you would start to lose weight. But it would probably take a few weeks.

What will happen?

[SpaceCadetTrav]

The future of the stereotypical fat, bearded unix admin is in serious jeopardy.

Re:What will happen?

[anakin357]

So is the future of said person who makes fun of the above.

Re:What will happen?

[smartin]

No it's windows only.

Re:What will happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've still got 'unshowered.' May we never give that one up.

Re:What will happen?

[Torinaga-Sama]

Hey, I don't have a beard!

Re:What will happen?

[`Sean]

The future of the stereotypical fat, bearded unix admin is in serious jeopardy.

Dilbert already covered this... :)

Re:What will happen?

[ShieldW0lf]

This is such a load of crap. Hackers aren't fat, they're skinny and wear black.

This diet is going to do nothing for them... gaining weight is hard, unlike losing weight, which is easy.

Stop eating like a pig, then go to the gym and break a bit of a sweat with some cardio. Wow, that's a hard lifestyle change.

Try gaining some muscle-weight after the age of 25, and you'll wish you were a lard-ass with easily fixed problems.

Re:What will happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try creatine. I think it has more to do with a cometic apparent gain in muscle mass rather than doing much to actually increase muscle gain. But in skinny people especially it can often make pretty impressive changes. Without much fat on you, the swelled muscles become quickly apparent.

Re:What will happen?

[Eiki]

Exactly my problem - of course, I don't like to complain about it; it helps with the heat down here in Florida, and it's better than being fat in any event. But suffice it to say, if I lost the hundred pounds mentioned by the creator of this thread, I'd be long dead!

And I already eat like a pig, it just doesn't help!

Re:What will happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

For once I'm going to agrue to something that at first sounds illogical. I've been overweight since highschool but I recently shred 30lbs without much effort just by doing most cardio. Meanwhile my skinny friends work out forever at the gym and can't eat enough to gain any weight. I've got a fit and muscular body now, while he's still the skinny stick. It really is harder to build muscles... after your 20s anyways.

Re:What will happen?

[Flounder]

This is such a load of crap. Hackers aren't skinny, they're fat and wear free t-shirts from Comdex. This diet is going to do everything for them... losing weight is hard, unlike gaining weight, which is easy. Start eating like a pig, then go to the gym and laugh at all the sweaty people. Wow, that's a hard lifestyle change. Try losing some weight after the age of 25, and you'll wish you were a skinny loud-mouthed idiot with easily fixed problems.

Re:What will happen?

[isfuglen]

Well, doing cardio won't put muscle on you, and in the long run it might actually make you lose muscle mass (there are plenty of great fitness sites on the web that will tell you this). Try pumping some iron combined with high-intensity interval cardio training (for example 30 sec. at 11 km/h + 30 sec. at 15 km/h for 12 minutes on the treadmill). Very effective for getting rid of that extra fat.

And just a bit of information - I'm over 25 and have no problems packing on the muscle sans roids, and I'm a geekgirl. It's a matter of working out correctly and eating correctly and getting enough rest in between.

Re:What will happen?

[carlos_benj]

Actually, neither one is particularly hard if you're willing to discipline yourself. Both require discipline in the areas of exercise and diet.

If the skinny guy cranks away at the weights and has poor form and eats lots of junk food he's not going to gain weight. If you want to gain muscle mass you have to use the right raw materials, muscle just doesn't get built from carbs. Muscles burn carbs for fuel. You need a disciplined approach to the weight bench and high caloric intake with the bulk of the calories coming from protein. If you're a vegetarian that becomes even harder because you'll eat a ton of tofu.

If the tubby guy goes to the gym and does uninspired cardio and thinks he's ratcheting up his metabolism enough to make up for the twinkies and soft drinks, he's not going to lose weight. Build muscle to create the engines that burn fuel and work in intense cardio sessions. If you barely get your heart rate up, you're not burning anything but time.

These are both simplified but the data is in from peer reviewed studies on exercise and nutrition, so we don't have to rely on crazy diets. Atkins is beneficial short term, but should not be viewed as a long term solution.

Re:What will happen?

[FTL]

> This is such a load of crap. Hackers aren't skinny, they're fat and wear free t-shirts from Comdex. This diet is going to do everything for them... losing weight is hard, unlike gaining weight, which is easy.

Weight gain is not easy. I've always been on the skinny side, but for over a year I've been steadilly losing a couple of pounds a month. I've tried eating more, changing my diet, varying my activities, but I just keep getting thinner. Now that I'm in the double-digits I'm starting to get really worried.

Re:What will happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I've always been on the skinny side, but for over a year I've been steadilly losing a
>> couple of pounds a month. I've tried eating more, changing my diet, varying my
>> activities, but I just keep getting thinner.

See a doctor immediately, if you haven't yet. There are a number of serious illnesses that could cause that kind of weight loss.

Re:What will happen?

[Doctor O]

I second that AC. You might for example have Diabetes or several forms of cancer. I, for one, am diatetic and you might guess how I found out.

Seriously, see a doctor. I am not paranoid, but I know from my own experience that there are signals of your body you must not ignore. Losing weight constantly and below a certain level definitely is one of those.

What about the dangers?

[KDan]

From what I've heard, Atkins is extremely harsh on your kidneys, with some seriously bad side-effects when you use it for prolonged periods. Surely getting thin is not worth dying or having permanent renal damage for...

Daniel

Re:What about the dangers?

[Vengie]

You've obviously never been fat. 4'10 and 320 in my teens...i'm now 5'9, 160 at 21. And trust me....being 5'9 160 is rather important when you're both a nerd and gay. As if having the stigma of being a nerd wasn't enough....being a fat nerd is even worse, but being a fat gay nerd just sucks. They can repair the damage to my kidneys -- they can't repair the damage to my soul.
And the men of yale are so shallow anyway....

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

And being overweight doesn't have it's own seriously bad side-effects?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have heard wrong. There has been an incredible amount of research on Atkins and other lo-carb diets done in the last two years and it is all pointing to this being the way to go.

Personally I am down over 50 pounds and no side effects at all almost a year afterwards.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are referring to the increased protein intake, if you increase the amount of water you consume the strain put on your kidenys will be minimal. This is assuming that you aren't deriving something like 80 percent of your calories from protein...

Re:What about the dangers?

[Ieshan]

That's the most ridiculous crap I've ever heard. If you're in dialysis someday with kidney failure, you'll realize that your health is far more important than social perception.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Mononoke]

That's the most ridiculous crap I've ever heard. If you're in dialysis someday with kidney failure, you'll realize that your health is far more important than social perception.

When you're in dialysis someday with kidney failure due to diabetes, you might make the connection between carbohydrate ingestion and sugar production in the body. It'll be too late for you, though.

Re:What about the dangers?

[bobwoodard]

I'd encourage you to do some research, there's all kinds of urban myths about the diet. BTW, I've heard the Earth is flat. 8-)

That aside, any diet will impact different people in different ways and common sense should be observed.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Mononoke]

From what I've heard, Atkins is extremely harsh on your kidneys, with some seriously bad side-effects when you use it for prolonged periods.

From what I've heard, the moon is made of cheese, and a pill will make my penis longer.

From what I've heard.

Re:What about the dangers?

[BWJones]

From what I've heard, Atkins is extremely harsh on your kidneys, with some seriously bad side-effects when you use it for prolonged periods. Surely getting thin is not worth dying or having permanent renal damage for...

Beyond the potential damage to renal systems, (which occur as a result of glomerular scarring) there are other risks to not ingesting enough fruits and veggies. I like some blood red rare meat as much as the next guy, but fruits have many anti-oxidant compounds in them that scavenge free radicals. Veggies, have fiber in them that in addition to keeping you regular, reduce incidence of a number of cancers of the GI tract.

On top of all of that, diets high in proteins and fats (Like the Atkins diet) predispose folks to heart disease, strokes and diabetes.

Re:What about the dangers?

[SiliconBateman]

I think that is the point... the Atkins diet has been around since the 70s yes... it has been incredibly popular over the past 2 years yes... but no long term studies investigating the increased strain low carbs put on the body. Yes this is theoretical conjuncture but as no long term practical studies have been carried out I'll stick to my varied diet, not too many calories and regular exercise, I feel great and I know the long term benefits are positive.

I also have no bad breath, no constupation, good skin condition and no bags under my eyes - typical symptoms (and if you don't have them then good for you) of low-carb (and hence low fibre) diets.

Re:What about the dangers?

[AJWM]

It can be harsh on your kidneys if you consume a lot of protein without drinking enough water (as in straight H2O, not mixed with caffeine, coloring and sweetener). A high protein diet puts means more nitrogen (urea) to be excreted.

But, drinking plenty of water both negates the problem and also lowers your hunger level in the first place. If you're getting the kind of side effects you're talking about, you're doing some other high protein, low everything else diet, not Atkins (at least, not properly).

Oh, and there's a difference between "getting thin" and "reducing your weight" for a lot of people -- for many, the risk of kidney damage from an Atkins-like diet is far lower than the risks of not losing that weight (high blood pressure, cardiovascular damage, heart disease, back and knee problems from the extra weight, etc, etc).

Re:What about the dangers?

[Mononoke]

Beyond the potential damage to renal systems, (which occur as a result of glomerular scarring) there are other risks to not ingesting enough fruits and veggies. I like some blood red rare meat as much as the next guy, but fruits have many anti-oxidant compounds in them that scavenge free radicals. Veggies, have fiber in them that in addition to keeping you regular, reduce incidence of a number of cancers of the GI tract.

FUD. Veggies are a large part of the Atkins diet. It's not all "blood red meat."

On top of all of that, diets high in proteins and fats (Like the Atkins diet) predispose folks to heart disease, strokes and diabetes.

Wrong. Atkins has proven itself in lowering cholesterol. Atkins was a heart doc, ya know. His observations of success among his patients led to the development of the diet.

Re:What about the dangers?

[SiliconBateman]

complex carbs != sugar

brown bread is no where like a cola or lemonade. Sugar ingestion triggers diabetes in those predisposed to it. Complex carbs do not trigger to these people. Oh, and those not pre-disposed to diabetes will never have it.

Re:What about the dangers?

[KDan]

Yes, it does. And if your toe is hurting after you've knocked it against something, do you cut it off?

Daniel

Re:What about the dangers?

[Seabass55]

Well you better hurry up and tell the Eskimos they've been eating unhealthy all these years.

Re:What about the dangers?

[CustomDesigned]

Having had several family members use Atkins successfully, I can say that the above is misleading. It is true that high protein with near 0 carbs is hard on your kidneys. However, this extreme measure is only recommended for the first week, to "jump start" the weight loss. Some versions of Atkins don't recommend it at all.

To balance the dangers of high protein, 0 carb, consider the danger of a diet high in simple carbs: adult onset diabetes. That can cause permanent damage also - and is way too prevalent in America. (Throw away that Jolt.)

After the initial week, a typical Atkins regimine reintroduces fruits and grains - but in measured amounts to keep calories from carbs around 15%. After the desired weight loss is reached, carb percentage can be gradually increased to a stable ratio. Just make sure those carbs aren't "empty". You need those fruits and whole grains. You don't need that soda.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Davak]

As one of slash's physicians, I feel I should contribute a little research on the topic. The summary of the research is that Atkin's probably works and probably lowers cholesterol. I recently read a study that followed people out for 12 months that found the diet safe.

I tend to follow the Mediterranean diet but have no better science supporting it either.

This New England Journal of Medicine article agrees with my beliefs. The important thing to remember is that weight loss requires changes to diet for life! Any diet, even Atkins, only works as long as you can follow it...

New England Journal of Medicine Article

BACKGROUND: Despite the popularity of the low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat (Atkins) diet, no randomized, controlled trials have evaluated its efficacy. METHODS: We conducted a one-year, multicenter, controlled trial involving 63 obese men and women who were randomly assigned to either a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet or a low-calorie, high-carbohydrate, low-fat (conventional) diet. Professional contact was minimal to replicate the approach used by most dieters. RESULTS: Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [+/-SD], -6.8+/-5.0 vs. -2.7+/-3.7 percent of body weight; P=0.001) and 6 months (-7.0+/-6.5 vs. -3.2+/-5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), but the difference at 12 months was not significant (-4.4+/-6.7 vs. -2.5+/-6.3 percent of body weight, P=0.26). After three months, no significant differences were found between the groups in total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. The increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations and the decrease in triglyceride concentrations were greater among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet than among those on the conventional diet throughout most of the study. Both diets significantly decreased diastolic blood pressure and the insulin response to an oral glucose load. CONCLUSIONS: The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.

Re:What about the dangers?

[KDan]

Oh, and there's a difference between "getting thin" and "reducing your weight" for a lot of people -- for many, the risk of kidney damage from an Atkins-like diet is far lower than the risks of not losing that weight (high blood pressure, cardiovascular damage, heart disease, back and knee problems from the extra weight, etc, etc).

I fully appreciate that some people definitely need to reduce their weight simply for health reasons. But if you're so weak-willed that you'd rather damage your body than make an effort then you're setting yourself up for having to stay on that diet forever, aren't you? And that can't be good...

Daniel

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend's ten-year-old sister uses the AOL screenname "LaraCTRaider." Childish and contrived, yes, but what can you expect from a kid?

Sorry for the digression. I just flashed on that when I saw your retarded-as-hell "Mononoke" nickname. That's real original, clusterschmuck. What's your email handle -- "Akira" or "Kusanagi"?

Very cool. You're soooooo Japanese...

Re:What about the dangers?

[Mononoke]

Very cool. You're soooooo Japanese...

And you're an Anonymous Coward.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Godai]

I can back this up. I've lost 65 pounds on Atkins (down to 215) and I have to say that, if anything, I'm eating MORE fruits & vegtables than I was before. YMMV though.

Re:What about the dangers?

[blkwolf]

Obviously you dont really know anything about the Atkins diet, or you would know that even in the initial 2week induction phase, your daily dose of veggies is very important.

In fact someone following Atkins probably eats more veggies a day than the average american who doesn't follow the plan.

Unless your counting those fries with your burger and coke as part of your anti oxidant regime?

The myth about Atkins being only about high protien and fat is just that a "myth". The main point of the nutritional regime is to cut out processed sugar and "empty" or "bad" carbs, like those found in white flour, starches etc. Especially in the later phases of Atkins good carbs from fruits etc are not only ecouraged but required.

Also of note, I started Atkins because a roommate of mine has been following it for a couple years. At 5'4" 300+ lbs, with diebetes she was in far more danger of heart disease, stroke etc than she is today 150lbs lighter and her blood sugar levels are so well controlled thru her diet she doesn't even need insulin for her diabetes. Her physician not only knows she follows Atkins but is estatic she does so.

Re:What about the dangers?

[wo1verin3]

>> My friend's ten-year-old sister uses the AOL
>> screenname "LaraCTRaider."

Can you phone her and ask her why she isn't responding to my requests for a meeting please?

Re:What about the dangers?

[SiliconBateman]

OK, this is OT by now and I didn't post the original remark, but why do you have the username of a princess but claim to have a penis?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"well, stop being a faggot then. see a shrink. "

Being gay is not something to see a doctor about. Being offended by somebody being gay is something to see a doctor about.

Re:What about the dangers?

[punkass]

Well, not after the tenth time, no...

Re:What about the dangers?

[Mononoke]

but why do you have the username of a princess but claim to have a penis?

It's not necessarily only the name of a "princess."

From Nausicaa.net:

Mononoke means "The spirit of a thing". Basically, the Japanese blame mononoke for every unexplainable thing, from a major natural disaster to a minor headache. A mononoke could be the spirit of an inanimate object, such as a wheel, the spirit of a dead person, the spirit of a live person, the spirit of an animal, goblins, monsters, or a spirit of nature.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice tautology. Now, how do you determine whether someone is "predisposed" to it without just waiting around forever to see if they get it?

Only people who are "predisposed" to posting on slashdot actually do so.

Re:What about the dangers?

[ameoba]

Look at all the guys that were doing steroids to build muscle and didn't find out that it was bad for over a decade...

Re:What about the dangers?

[AJWM]

On top of all of that, diets high in proteins and fats (Like the Atkins diet) predispose folks to heart disease, strokes and diabetes.

That turns out not to be the case.

That is certainly not true for diabetes, which is aggravated by high carbo (especially simple carbs -- sugars) diets which put blood sugar levels through wild swings. Atkins-type diets reduce the risks of diabetes.

It also doesn't seem to be true of heart disease or strokes. The Atkins improves the HDL-LDL cholesterol ratio, and can reduce blood pressure (some of this is probably mechanically due to fat loss meaning a shorter circulatory system to push the blood through).

Fruits and veggies are certainly part of the Atkins diet, although they're more severely restricted during the two-week "induction" phase to get your metabolism kicked over to fat-burning. What is excluded (not totally) is refined sugars and high-starch foods, particularly grains and cereals. Makes sense, the latter have only been available for the last 5000 years or so of several million years of hominid evolution.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water is good, but don't forget you do need salt and other electrolytes too.

Re:What about the dangers?

[SiliconBateman]

It is not a tautology... I suggest you read up in your pre-med 101 physiology textbooks. You WILL NOT get diabetes unless you are pre-disposed to it, those who are not pre-disposed can eat insane quantities of suger and alchohol and never suffer (from diabetes, though there are a host of other bad effects).

Re:What about the dangers?

[McAddress]

ahem. thats Pot.Kettle.Black() . We use C++ now.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, genetic testing? Family history? Symptoms? Dumbass.

Re:What about the dangers?

[geirhe]

From what I've heard, Atkins is extremely harsh on your kidneys, with some seriously bad side-effects when you use it for prolonged periods. Surely getting thin is not worth dying or having permanent renal damage for...

You are correct. Atkins-like diets put a huge strain on all waste disposal systems in the body. Forcing the body to live off proteins is not healthy in the long run - the body tends to reduce nonessential tissue like muscle that is not in use. This is a bad thing since having a decent amount of muscle will actually increase your metabolism. This is all a downwards spiral - you go on a diet, lose muscle, need to eat even less, then diet even harder, lose more muscle...

I realize that this is politically incorrect, but the only "overclockers" out there with a long-term track record are (dope-free) bodybuilders. They eat healthy food and exercise regularly, and keep on doing this year after year. The key to that is variation. Half the year, these people lift weights and eat lots of (healthy) food. The body builds muscle, and the waste disposal systems are forced to grow (slowly) along with the muscles. The other half (leading up to the beach season, yuh?) they lift less weights and do more cardicascular stuff, and eat less. The kidneys and liver now live a harder life, but will get a break in a couple of months.

No, I am not a bodybuilder, but I am willing to learn from people who actually accomplish their goals instead of just writing about it. Atkins has described a fifteen year old bodybuilding diet. Go buy a modern book on bodybuilding diets. And yes, I have lost about 30 pounds since I started exercising. I now have a basic metabolism that seems to burn off about 500kcal more each day than it did before. I can now more or less eat moderate amounts of whatever I want without gaining weight. When I have time to really put in some exercise (which means doing something physical for an hour each day or so), it is more or less impossible to gain weight. Good job too, since I like to spend time in my kitchen.

Re:What about the dangers?

[SiliconBateman]

Very interesting, thanks :)

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you thinking? This is slashdot, and statistical analysis of a controlled, randomized clinical trial is in no way substitute for anecdote and personal opinion. Please stick to medical boards in the future.

Re:What about the dangers?

[bobwoodard]

I guess if the signs haven't shown up in 30 years, it is possible for them to show up in 60 or perhaps 90 years? 8-)

Re:What about the dangers?

[StandardDeviant]

How about reading up on what "ketosis" does to your body sometime? (This being the thing all the hackers^WAtkins-idiots rabbit on about in the linked Salon article.)

I've heard it's pretty bad.

Oh wait, I've gone through having my kidneys die (spent pretty much all of 1998 on dialysis and eventually got a kidney transplant, 9 Dec 1998). I can tell you first hand that ketosis is nothing you want to fuck around with.

Word to the wise, kiddies, ketosis is not a state you want to be in. It's not a fun place to be. Want to lose weight? Fine, eat something approximating a healthy (i.e. balanced) diet and hit the gym or go jogging/swimming/bike-riding an hour a day. Anything in the diet/excercise/nutrition realm that sounds too good to be true ("you mean i can eat cheeseburgers breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and lose weight?!?!?! OMGWTFLOL!!!!"), well, IS. Get used to it, TANSTAAFL.

Re:What about the dangers?

[The Analog Kid]

Well it's either you die of Atkins, or you die of a heart attack, pick one.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Suck that dick in your mouth you PC whore."

Sorry, not gay. Just somebody who isn't afraid of them.

Re:What about the dangers?

[AJWM]

But if you're so weak-willed that you'd rather damage your body than make an effort

Ah, here we go, the "moral superiority" of the metabolically skinny.

Some people -- for whatever reason -- just don't like to eat as much as some others. For them, maintaining their weight isn't really a matter of "strong will", any more than it's a matter of strong will for me not to be an alcoholic. Did the partying and getting drunk in college, decided the negatives outweighed the positives, and just don't do that any more (not that I'm a teetotaler by any means). Does that mean that an alcoholic is just "weak willed"? Probably not, just means they've got a metabolic (or psychological) difference such that the urge to drink is a lot stronger in them than it is in me.

The trick, then, is (in either case), determining what combination of diet and lifestyle reduces those urges (whether to eat or drink) in the first place. Sure, sticking with that requires a certain amount of willpower. But you're making a mistake in assuming that this is something that would "damage your body". Popping diet pills or starving yourself will damage your body, but there's no indication that the Atkins (properly followed) would.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, Mr. PC, would you accept and defend a pedophile the same way you knee-jerk-accepted a fag?"

Nope. I wasn't defending gays by saying that it's not their fault they're gay. Being gay is not a sickness. It's not something that needs to be treated. Homophobia however, is something that should be treated. It's an irrational fear that has lead to murder.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Mononoke]

Word to the wise, kiddies, ketosis is not a state you want to be in. It's not a fun place to be.

Please learn the difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis. You've got them confused.

Re:What about the dangers?

[henryweimd]

I've been optimistic about this diet for my patients as well -- the Mediterranean diet seems to export fairly well into the diet of other cultures. There was a Lancet article on a trial of the Mediterranean diet in India.

Re:What about the dangers?

[rsidd]

If you're in dialysis someday with kidney failure, you'll realize that your health is far more important than social perception.

Not only that, but there are healthy ways to lose weight. Eat a balanced diet, with normal-sized portions (the Europeans do it right, as do lots of other communities that have eaten traditional forms of food for centuries), and take plenty of exercise (just walking half an hour a day should do a lot of good). It's a win-win situation: not only do you lose weight but you become healthier, and you improve your self-esteem and social perception. What a deal. (And yes, I practise what I preach.)

Re:What about the dangers?

[VivianC]

I was on Atkins for a year and a half and lost about 80 pounds. I also got kidney and gall stones as side effects. Nothing you can do about the gall stones, any rapid weight loss can cause them. But for the kidney stones, you need to make sure you are drinking enough water. Also, watch for died blood flecks in your urine (I thought they were from a vitamin I was taking). They can be an early sign or irritation.

I am not a doctor, but I've been there. Eventually went for the major "case mod" and had gastric bypass about a year ago. Down 150 pounds to 260.

Can't help you on the gay or nerd things. Some crosses you just have to bear. ;)

Re:What about the dangers?

[fanatic]

How about reading up on what "ketosis" does to your body sometime?

How about understanding that there is more than one corcumstance that will cause ketosis and they are not equal:

1. Serious diabetes: No insulin in the blood, so glucose can't be used, so the body (starved for energy) frantically turns fat into ketones, but these are also ill used in the absence of insulin. Kidneys are probably ALREADY damaged by years of high blood sugars before this ever happens, as high glucose by itself is enough to damage kidneys.
2. Low carb diet: in the absence of enogugh carbs to meet all energy needs, the body turns fat into ketones which are then used for some energy needs. So far, no study that I've heard of has demonstrated that this form of ketosis harms kidneys. liver or anything else.

But if you're really concerned, you can go to your doctor every 3 to 6 months and get a workup for liver and kidney function. Typically these are unchanged or improve for people who limit carbohydrates, especially if they are doing so to address diabete.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Europhile sayeth:

the Europeans do it right

The facts sayeth:

In the UK, nearly two-thirds of men and over half of all women are now overweight - and 1 in 5 are obese (at least 30-45 pounds overweight). The level of obesity has tripled in the past 20 years, and is still rising. At this rate, by 2010 at least 1 in 4 adults will be obese. Overweight and obesity is rising amongst children too. European and Australian obesity figures are also high (see Obesity table, below).

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno.. some dudes love a big fat ass to jam their cocks into...

Just make sure you stock up on the K-Y

Also, make sure you wear a jimmy

Re:What about the dangers?

[Requiem]

?- call(pot, property(kettle, black)).

yes

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to avoid the issue. Would you defend a pedophile by saying it's not a sickness, and if not, why is pedophilia a sickness and faggotry, all of a sudden in the last few decades, isn't?
I'm just curious how opinions can shift, is all. How come faggotry is now almost something so cool everyone wants to be gay, but other things that are just as uncontrollable are still treated with chemical castration and public outrage?
What's the deal? Better lobby, more respect? That's the way it works?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, lots of research paid by the people pimping out the
Atkins diet. Has about as much credibility as those surveys
MS pays claiming Windows has better uptime than any other
OS, is more secure, cheaper, and fixes all your social life problems.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Master Bait]

I wonder if anybody has studied the prevalance of Candida albicans in overweight people who respond well to the Atkins diet. The Atkins diet is very similar to Candida diets which were so popular 5 years ago. This also reminds me that some quacks suggest Candida blooms are the result of parasitic protozoa infections.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever read Plato's Phaedrus?

Do you think Socrates faced some "early childhood trauma"?

If anything, I would argue homosexuality is a backlash against the extreme feminization of our society. I know that after a lifetime of domineering women from my ex-hippie mother, to virtually every school teacher, to the bitches in the workplace... not to mention having to see some chick flaunting her body no matter where I go... I don't look at women as being a source of intimacy at all anymore. Whatever else women do with their lives, comradeship and male elevating companionship is not something they can do.

Now, homosexuality in the US is a little different from the past it sometimes can be feminized (the women trapped in a man's body bit). That really took off during the Victorian era, which is the beginning of modern feminism (ie, men are bad deviants, women are pure good virgins, or at least virginal).

No, I think men want to be men, and are sick of women, their problems, their whining, etc... The only way you can realistically seperate your life from women is to be gay.

Also, the whole being fat and introverted is just a sympotom of all this. If we lived in a proper society, a child's father would raise his son to be a man, and would never let him become a fat loner. Masculinity is about physical perfection and comradeship. We are supposed to be artists and warriors. You can't fight if you are physically incapable and can't be part of the group, and you will have a hard time hearing the muses if you yourself are a revolting contradiction to the human form.

This response I am reading is a very typical female response to life.

A man raised properly would not feel any sort of discomfort for any kind of suffering, because ideally what should await you as a man IS great suffering. Seriously, what is the big deal if someone grabs your dick? Do you think that is going to be anywhere near as bad as say, getting lanced through the gut with a spear?

Re:What about the dangers?

[domninus.DDR]

and dont you just love the shit people will say for you saying that even on a website where the people would consider themselves "open minded"? I know I love hearing it irl all the time.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you one of these
?

Re:What about the dangers?

[JebusIsLord]

true, as american fast food culture invades europe as well. There is NO nation, however, with such rampant obesity problems as the US, right now.

Re:What about the dangers?

[JebusIsLord]

Shut the fuck up, asshole. This isn't a hate site. Just because you don't understand it (I don't either) doesn't make it wrong. By your logic, Linux is wrong because most people don't understand it, either.

Re:What about the dangers?

[azav]

But what about all those people who eat fish?

Fish is mostly protein.

We'll have to take a look at my kidneys one of these days. I eat mostly meat and drink mostly beer. No gut in sight.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that "open minded" usually means just accepting whatever one is told to accept. Truly open minded people don't hold hands with fags but then make life hell for pedophiles, for instance. Truly open minded people will understand that such things as faggotry and pedophilia are all part of human DNA...

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you defend a pedophile by saying it's not a sickness, and if not, why is pedophilia a sickness and faggotry, all of a sudden in the last few decades, isn't?

Maybe it shouldn't be a sickness either. Pedophelia was a normal and excepted part of life in antiquity. Plato wrote about in the Phaedrus.

Clearly, Plato was not some sort of maniac. Perhaps it is unacceptable in our social system here, but there is no evidence it is anything more than a taboo.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Zugot]

Tomorrow on Maury: "Fat, Gay Nerds who post on Slashdot"

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand pedophiles either. Your point?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I was losing hope for people in general. It's pretty clear that the 'tolerance' and 'open mindedness' of western culture is mostly group-think prodded by huge lobbies and media manipulation. I really worry for the people with problems that don't have a cute media-savvy lobby like the fags do. You're a fag? Great! Let's have a party! Oh, you like kids?! YOUR LIFE IS OVER SICKO!
Oh, and it's 'accepted', otherwise you've got a nice little Freudian slip there...

Re:What about the dangers?

[sky_fire]

hmm I'm a 6'3" 420 pound bi nerd and getting plenty of action. Sounds like you're just not doing it right. :p

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Shut the fuck up, asshole. This isn't a hate site."

Wow, savor the irony on this one. Full of love for the fags with lobbies, claims to be open-minded, but if you have a contrary opinion to his, watch out!

Is this the open mindedness and tolerance I hear so much about? Can I have some?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

At 5'4" 300+ lbs, with diebetes she was in far more danger of heart disease, stroke etc than she is today 150lbs lighter and her blood sugar levels are so well controlled

This is the very point that people seem to miss with respect to health and weight.

A human is in a much more unhealthy state when overweight. Congrats to your friend.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but one day Mastercard will send you the bill, then who's laughing?

Re:What about the dangers?

[kraksmoka]

i feel bad for ya dude. never thought i would ever hear anyone describe themselves as a "fat gay nerd" on this site. that is usually the worst insult thrown at anything around here.

that said, congrats on your atkins! i prefer the john walker hacker's diet myself, but really, its about getting exercise and detaching from the screen for 1 hour a day every day.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a very large and very significant difference between two consenting adults and someone who takes advantage of children. The only knee-jerk reaction I see is bigotry towards people for no good reason.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so much FUD. So-called protein sparing diets do not put a "huge strain on all waste disposal systems in the body."

Get yourself to biochemistry class.

If you have already had one, then you didn't listen.

The Atkins diet does not describe a 15 year old bodybuilding diet. It describes a method of using a half of your body's metabolism that has been there for millions of years.

This is isn't an arena for arm-chair scientists, folks. This is anthropology, biochemistry, cell biology, and human physiology.

Like CECS scientists who state that they write code so that I don't have to, I'll put fort this:

I read code (ATCG) so that you don't have to.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

When's the last time anyone saw a thin Eskimo?

Re:What about the dangers?

[NoData]

Any diet, even Atkins, only works as long as you can follow it...

Except that nows there's evidence that low-carb style diets work better than other more conventional diets. A recent Harvard study presented at the last meeting of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity showed that subjects on a controlled low-carb diet lost more weight than conventional dieters--despite eating on average 25,000 more calories over the course of the 12 week study! The AP covered this, and I found an archive of the storyat FoxNews. It really flies in the face of the standard nutritionist's "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" dogma.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Way to avoid the issue. Would you defend a pedophile by saying it's not a sickness, and if not, why is pedophilia a sickness and faggotry, all of a sudden in the last few decades, isn't?"

Didn't avoid it, it just isn't relevant to what I said. If you 'won' that debate, you'd claim victory over what we had originally talked about. However, if you're willing to split the two discussions, I'd be happy to have that one with you.

Say the word and I'll discuss it with you. So long as it stays a discussion and not an argument.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if you find out that one of your neighbours is a pedophile (thanks to our open-minded and tolerant society's many 'sexual deviant watch' type programs), what's your reaction?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Shut the fuck up, asshole. This isn't a hate site"

That's an interesting comment considering you nick or does hating Chrisitians not count?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

" Would you defend a pedophile by saying it's not a sickness, and if not, why is pedophilia a sickness and faggotry, all of a sudden in the last few decades, isn't?"

Likening homosexuality to being a pedophile is like likening a hunter to a murderer. You might be able to find some things they do in common (i.e. using a gun) but the similarities don't go deeper than that. Homosexuality is concentual, pedophilia (sp?) is forced. That alone is enough to draw a very distinct line between the two.

It takes a small mind to not see the difference. It takes an even smaller mind to hate people who are of a different preference to yourself.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

An open mind doesn't close the distinction between being gay and being a pedophile.

Re:What about the dangers?

[platypus]

And yes, I have lost about 30 pounds since I started exercising. I now have a basic metabolism that seems to burn off about 500kcal more each day than it did before. I can now more or less eat moderate amounts of whatever I want without gaining weight. When I have time to really put in some exercise (which means doing something physical for an hour each day or so), it is more or less impossible to gain weight.

Yeah. That is the point. All these damn wunder diets ...
People, if you want to loose weight, get off your lazy ass and do some sports.. Burn more calories than you consume, that's all that is to it. No pain, no gain, it's that easy.
And, btw., lifting weights and stuff like that is perfect, because it's quite energy consuming.

Re:What about the dangers?

[rsidd]

In the UK, nearly two-thirds of men and over half of all women are now overweight

Well, I should have said southern Europe: Spain, Italy, France. The UK isn't known for great food or healthy eating habits :)

It is true that many of these countries are beginning to catch up with the US. Doesn't mean you individually have to do that too. There are lots of fit people in the US -- in fact people in New York are about as thin as people in Europe, perhaps because they walk and use public transport.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Atkins was a heart doc, ya know.

He also had a heart attack last year. Some doctor he is!

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in love with Ana, and ketosis is my friend.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, you people are funny. Decades ago, people would have said homosexuality is forced too. That's what I'm trying to get at. You merely 'tolerate' whatever is in fashion now because of lobby groups.
Pedophilia is inborn. It is in nature. The same arguments are used for faggies. One group is deified, the other vilified. WHY THE DIFFERENCE? If only people were honest and said 'The fags have better TV shows'.
Instead they serve up insipid comparisons with no real insight.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, it's very clear what your views are.
You defend gays knee-jerk style. You don't really know why. I think it's because of lobbies. I worry about the dozens of other things that can go wrong with people like pedophilia, depression, etc that don't have cute powerful lobbies (GLAD anyone). I'm sorry, at this point I don't see a real difference between someone saying they've always felt like ripping rectums and someone always being attracted to kids. Both should be tolerated, or rejected.
I'm not talking about the ultimate act here, smashing a guy's guts or doing it with kids is not relevant here. I'm talking about 'tolerating' one sickness but not the other.
The acts are another issue entirely.
Clear?

Re:What about the dangers?

[`Sean]

There's always room for Jello!

Re:What about the dangers?

[Free_Meson]

It really flies in the face of the standard nutritionist's "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" dogma.

Well, there's a problem with measuring calories the way I assume they measured them... A "calorie" of fat is the amount of fat needed in combustion to heat 1 gram of water 1 kelvin from RT. (In nutritional parlance, a Calorie is 1000 of these calories). anyway, you can burn protein, fat, and glucose with similar efficiencies through combustion, but the body doesn't work that way. In order to use any energy, your body converts that fat/protein into glucose, which is not 100% efficient. If, say, the conversion is 95% efficient, which would be pretty good, then you can eat 1000 calories of fat for every 950 calories of starch. It's also worth noting that just because you eat fat/protein doesn't mean that your body sticks that fat/protein somewhere -- your liver may convert it into something more useful at the moment. The same thing goes with starch. Back in the 60's there were some crazy diets that involved not eating any fats, though, and because there are some fats that the body needs and cannot synthesize, that went badly.

The key is just doing what works for you and focusing on health rather than weight. I could probably lose 5-10 lbs if I went hardcore Atkins, but I am pretty healthy and high-energy now on a more balanced (but still high-protein, low-carb) diet because I spend ~70 mins/day in low-impact aerobic activity and another half hour lifting. I can change my weight whenever, but maintaining cardiovascular fitness is far more important for me at this point than whether my belly is well-insulated...

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any diet, even Atkins, only works as long as you can follow it...

And therein lies the problem. Most diets tend, at best, to bring about temporary weight loss because once the weight is gone, people go back to their old patterns. Weight loss is a =lifestyle= change and severely limited menus are problematic for long-term health. Counting, weighing, calculating and planning precise weight-loss meal plans only works until people get fed up with the bookkeeping or they meet their goals.

The bottom line is that "eat less and excercise" is still the best =health= plan.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry. Wrong. Atkin's is becoming widely recognized as a viable dietary regimine for people with both predisposition to high cholesterol and diabetes. I have both. My cardiologist loves it, and I've lost 50 pounds on it. And that's _after_ having had a major flat-line coronary event (i.e. I was, for all intents and purposes, dead, for almost 5 minutes in the ER). On Atkins my total cholesterol has dropped, my "good" cholesterol is up, my blood suger stays nice and even, and I no longer feel like crawling under my desk and going comatose after lunch from the "carb crash". Sure, I miss the rice, popcorn, French bread and bagels, but I've learned to live without it, since I'm still alive and probably will be for quite a while. A good trade, by my reckoning, since I know from experience what the alternative to living feels like.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, atkins is VERY bad for you in extended useage. You are tricking your body into starvation mode. (One of the reasons your breath smells like rotten ass after a few months). Also once you leave atkins you'll gain weight again since atkins doesn't exactly preach healthy eating/portion control. If you have no will power, don't diet, be yourself and find someone who will love you for that. if you have will power, control portions, exercise a tad, and STOP EATING so much crap. (Spoken as a 6' computer geek who now weighs 190ish, and used to weigh 250+.)

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact someone following Atkins probably eats more veggies a day than the average american who doesn't follow the plan.

Yep, they also usually eat fewer calories too (at least the ones who lose weight). Atkins also includes fish oils which is known to be good for cholesterol and is beneficial when added to a balanced diet. The simple fact of the matter is that the ONLY way to lose weight is to consume fewer calories than you burn. The average person's diet is probably very heavily biased towards carbs, and people who go on Atkins typically wind up restricting calories even though that isn't their intention.

Re:What about the dangers?

[JebusIsLord]

Lighten up, it isn't DieJebusLovers or anything. Besides, even if I did hate christians (which I do not), it is a two-wrongs logical falacy to state that "sure, we are wrong to hate gays, but you hate some people too, so that makes it okay".

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You defend gays knee-jerk style. "

I didn't defend them knee-jerk style. I defended them because I know a few gays and have had in-depth discussions with them. They have a difference preference, but are otherwise normal.

"I'm sorry, at this point I don't see a real difference between someone saying they've always felt like ripping rectums and someone always being attracted to kids. Both should be tolerated, or rejected."

You can't see the difference between what two consenting adults do and somebody imposing their will on a minor? Exactly how do you justify that? Gays are not guilty until proven innocent. Nobody is. Don't make it out like you're righteous for that belief.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

> One group is deified, the other vilified. WHY THE DIFFERENCE?

A murderer can go to jail for slashing somebody's guts open, but nobody hates a doctor for doing the exact same thing. WHY THE DIFFERENCE?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you're so weak-willed that you'd rather damage your body...

This argument is about on the level of asking a man if he's stopped beating his wife. You haven't established that Atkins damages the body.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it is unacceptable in our social system here, but there is no evidence it is anything more than a taboo.

It's called the "age of consent" for a reason. People below it are considered to be unable to give informed consent.

Re:What about the dangers?

[ScottGant]

This is wrong, as others have said here.

I've been on Atkins now for a while and have lost a little over 50 pounds and still losing. My blood pressure before when I weighed 320 was through the roof, my cholesterol also was in danger levels, and I was borderline type 2 diabetes.

Everything has turned around now. My blood pressure is normal, blood sugar is great, my cholesterol is VERY low (even though I eat real bacon, butter, eggs, steaks along with all my good veggies). Also, I'm no longer hungry all the time, craving my next meal. My moods have come into line...everything is just great.

I do eat carbs...but I still keep them under 20 grams of net carbs a day. It's almost impossible to NOT eat some form of carb. I eat plenty of fiber through flax seeds and certain beans.

KDan, what you heard was just FUD.

Also, NO diet is complete without excercise. I finally got to a point in my life where I MADE time to walk 2 miles a day.

I did this because I was 40 years old and 320 pounds and I was afraid that I wasn't going to live another 2 or 3 years. Life is too short as it is to muck it all up.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't understand what pedophilia is. It is simply a sexual orientation toward children, rather than (or in addition to) adult men or women. It does not mean forcible sex with children, or even sex at all.

As another enlightened AC mentioned previously, just like homosexuality, it is either inherited or acquired somehow. It is not caused by a "cycle of abuse", and it is not a choice - no one would choose to grow up as one of the most hated people in modern society.

By your logic, all heterosexual men are rapists.

Now who is small minded?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, fat ass.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

>You clearly don't understand what pedophilia is.

You started this thread by saying that a homosexual should see a shrink. I thought YOU had in mind a guy who runs around and rapes children.

>By your logic, all heterosexual men are rapists.

No, I never expressed that type of logic. I was accusing you of that, and still am. There's still the whole matter of being consentual. A homosexual man can satisfy his desires with another man (same is true for women btw) causing absolutely no harm to anybody. A pedohpile has no such outlet.

Simply put, homosexuality is not a danger to society. Pedophiles, however, have tastes they cannot do a lot about. If that's not enough for you, then I must ask this: Pretend you have a child. Let's say you have a neighbor you've known for years. You find out he has child porn. How would you feel? Now, same neighbor, let's say you find out that he's homosexual. How do you feel then? My hypothesis is that you'd be more disturbed by the pedophile example because you would feel that you weren't protecting your child in that event. But with the homosexual example, you probably don't feel like you or your child was ever in danger.

Re:What about the dangers?

[crazyphilman]

Here's something plenty of people probably haven't heard about: GOUT.

I went on Atkins, and was totally successful. I lost thirty pounds, and dropped a couple of pants sizes. I was totally happy. So far so good, right?

So one morning, out of the clear blue sky, I woke up in scarlet, hot-as-fire pain. My left big toe's joint swelled up and turned shiny and red, and it felt as though a metal spike had been pounded straight through the joint. Within a week I couldn't walk without a cane. I immediately stopped eating meat entirely, and started eating lots of cranberries, cherries, cranberry, cherry and grape juice, and loading up on carbs. Even with all that, and some NSAID horse-pills my doctor gave me, it took FOUR WEEKS for my foot to go back to normal. It was absolutely fucking horrible.

Gout is caused when an individual is sensitive to purines, i.e. he/she doesn't eliminate uric acid from his/her blood fast enough. A normal diet won't generally cause a gout attack, but Atkins is protein-rich, and protein is high in purines, which get turned into uric acid in the blood. So you're loading up on protein, and your body is building up the amount of uric acid in your blood, and before too long (maybe a few weeks) uric acid crystals start building up in the large joints of your feet. Which HURTS like NOTHING you have EVER EXPERIENCED.

Atkins is great for most people. BUT, if you're susceptible to gout, boy, oh boy are you in for it. And, there's no way to tell whether you are or aren't until you have an attack. It's only like about 1% of people who suffer this, but you should know it's possible before you start the diet.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

As with homosexuality, paedophilia tends to be defined by behaviour. Am I a serial killer if I enact the crime in my head, or a saint if I feel a strong impulse to help people that I don't act upon?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Children know what they like and what they don't. As long as the sexual activity in question is "safe", why shouldn't they be able to agree to it? Why shouldn't a kid decide that having his dick sucked actually feels *good*?

The harm is caused by society when it is discovered (Oh my god! He's under 18! He enjoyed it! He's a sexual deviant! He needs "therapy"! Lock him up!).

When I was a kid, I was in a relationship with an older man that truly cared about me. It was the best thing that ever happened to me, including the sexual part. No, I'm not gay now, and I was never "abused". But only because the "authorities" never found out.

The harm caused by society's reaction is reason enough that this type of relationship is dangerous, and probably should be avoided these days in most "cultures", but making it illegal simply reinforces the harm caused by society.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well said - it's amazing how rare such an objective viewpoint is, even in this supposedly "open minded" population.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the wrong AC - I didn't start this thread. But I am the one that posted the parent to your article.

WRT your child porn argument, you're entirely accurate about pedphiles having no such outlet. I'd feel a lot more comfortable about a pedophile that does use porn as a release, than one that doesn't.

In an ideal world, if I had a that hypothetical neighbor, I'd make sure my kids understand that no one should ever make them do something that they don't feel comfortable with, and I'd be open with them about sex and make sure they're comfortable talking - which I'd do in any case.

However, I wouldn't tell them to avoid him, or break off a friendship simply because he's attracted to my kids, any more than I'd break off a friendship with another hetero guy because he's attracted to my sister.

The fact is, I'd much rather have a friendly neighbor that appreciates kids and might be attracted to them, than a creepy Mr. Wilson type that intimidates them before going to beat his wife.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying to my own post - I forgot to mention that in THIS world, I'd probably be have to turn the guy into a pariah, because I'd be at risk of losing my kids to the state if I didn't make them deathy afraid of him and a social worker found out I knew he was a pedophile.

BTW, for an interesting and depressing example of how modern society handles sex and kids, read this Salon article.

Re:What about the dangers?

[aricusmaximus]

Yay! Time to feed the troll. Atkins' heart attack was in no way related to ateriosclerosis.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/04/2 5/ atkins.diet/

Re:What about the dangers?

[blackbear]

Nothing's going to happen to your kidneys if you follow the diet reasonably well.

I wanted to know if the diet had any health problems so I conducted my own single person study. Not useful scientifcally, but my results have mirrored those of others.

I spent a year eating low carb under the supervision of my doctor. (my idea, not his) At the end of the year I had a full physical with blood work. The results? Perfect. All tests normal. Blood sugar, triglycerides, blood pressure, LDL, and HDL, etc...

That was more than a year ago. My blood work is still perfect. Also, my between meal mood swings went away after the first week, and I have more energy, more consistantly. Why is this significant? Because I've eaten three eggs and sausages with whole milk every morning for breakfast for the last two years, and I didn't get high cholestrol (however you spell it) Tonight for supper I had a 24oz ribeye on my back yard grill. I firmly believe that low carb is the healthiest way to eat.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, asshole. This isn't a hate site.

Well, that statement certainly expresses love in it's truest form, doesn't it now?

Re:What about the dangers?

[LordEq]

He also had a heart attack last year. Some doctor he is!

Atkins' cardiac arrest was a result of cardiomyopathy, caused by an infection he contracted while overseas. Due to his otherwise excellent health, even this was non-fatal; Atkins died of complications caused by severe head trauma.

Get your facts straight, dipshit.

Re:What about the dangers?

[InadequateCamel]

The only caveat is, as someone posted just a short distance up that page, is that the benefits over a longer period are not as stunning as the short term. Can't say I am surprised; most of us are pretty "carbocentric"(?yay making up words) and that would be quite a shock to my body :-) But like anything, your body adapts and the weight loss tapers off.

The key, it seems, is to use the diet as a stepping stone to lifestyle change; ie. drop a lot of weight so that an obese person can jog without ruining themselves. Hey, it all comes down to what your body likes and doesn't like!

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I suspected that's what you were really talking about. :-) Your comment about the people in NY caught my attention so I looked it up. It is true they are slightly below the national average when it comes to obesity at 18% v. 21% for the nation in 2001 (from http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doh/pdf/survey/survey -2003obesity.pdf).

Also, you are absolutely right about people not having to eat poorly. Even if you eat McMeals just don't fall for the super-sized ploy.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Datafage]

So you're saying that anyone who isn't on Atkins is eating so much simple sugar they're going to get diabetes? Good call.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Datafage]

It's not even just a matter of how much they like to eat, some people have bodies that literally won't put on fat no matter what. I have a friend who lives on Hot Pockets and cereal with lots of chocolate syrup and he's 6'1 120lbs. My workout buddy loses his abs if he doesn't eat 3000 calories per day at least, and the loss occurs over the course of a week, his body just processes everything that fast. Me, on the other hand, I run like a demon every day and play handball and I'm still 5'11 200lbs. So unless the skinny people eat perfectly and excercise constantly, don't listen to them.

Re:What about the dangers?

[sudog]

Hey. Buddy. You're talking about overconsumption of simple sugars, not reasonable consumption of normal carbohydrates. Get your facts straight.

Re:What about the dangers?

[sudog]

Right. Limit them. Not eliminate them altogether.

Re:What about the dangers?

[sudog]

Great reasoning. "Consider high carb--it's bad for you. Thus, no carb must be good for you."

Oh yea, sounds great!

Re:What about the dangers?

[enomar]

Using the logic above, you could totally defend pedofiles. However, there is a huge difference between pedofiles and homosexuals. Homos (generally) want to #@%& consenting adults. Pedofiles want to victimize unsuspecting children that can't legally consent for themselves. Locking up pedofiles isn't about condemming their desires. It's about protecting children.

Re:What about the dangers?

[rsidd]

It is true they are slightly below the national average when it comes to obesity at 18% v. 21% for the nation in 2001

And that's for all boroughs, I suspect if you had figures for Manhattan alone they'd be significantly lower.

Re:What about the dangers?

[enomar]

Children know what they like and what they don't

Just because they like it, doesn't mean it's good for them, or that it will make them happy in the long run.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Spock the Baptist]

"18% v. 21% for the nation in 2001"

Humm...

21% - 18% = 3%

As in +/-3% sample error?

Re:What about the dangers?

[AJWM]

And while those skinny, calorie-burning types may look fashionable now, we that tend to retain the weight can take comfort in the fact that, comes a famine, they'll be the first to go.

Besides, as my old SCUBA instructor used to say, chubby divers are warm divers. (Rather important when for several months of the year, if you wanted to go diving locally you had to chop a hole in the ice first...)

Re:What about the dangers?

[Spock the Baptist]

All my pots are plain aluminum. What's your kettle made of?

Re:What about the dangers?

[isfuglen]

Here's some information I pulled off one of my bodybuilding groups: Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2000 Mar;10(1):28-38 (ISSN: 1526-484X) Poortmans JR; Dellalieux O Department of Physiological Chemistry, Institute of Physical Education and Kinesiotherapy, Free University of Brussels, Belgium. Excess protein and amino acid intake have been recognized as hazardous potential implications for kidney function, leading to progressive impairment of this organ. It has been suggested in the literature, without clear evidence, that high protein intake by athletes has no harmful consequences on renal function. This study investigated body-builders (BB) and other well-trained athletes (OA) with high and medium protein intake, respectively, in order to shed light on this issue. The athletes underwent a 7-day nutrition record analysis as well as blood sample and urine collection to determine the potential renal consequences of a high protein intake. The data revealed that despite higher plasma concentration of uric acid and calcium, Group BB had renal clearances of creatinine, urea, and albumin that were within the normal range. The nitrogen balance for both groups became positive when daily protein intake exceeded 1.26 g.kg but there were no correlations between protein intake and creatinine clearance, albumin excretion rate, and calcium excretion rate. To conclude, it appears that protein intake under 2. 8 g.kg does not impair renal function in well-trained athletes as indicated by the measures of renal function used in this study. Z Ernahrungswiss 1995 Mar;34(1):10-5 (ISSN: 0044-264X) Manz F; Remer T; Decher-Spliethoff E; Hohler M; Kersting M; Kunz C; Lausen B Forschungsinstitut fur Kinderernahrung, Dortmund. Bodybuilders often prefer a high protein diet to achieve maximum skeletal muscle hypertrophy. In this study the effect of a high protein diet on renal acid load and renal handling of proton excretion was studied comparing dietary intake and urinary ionograms in 37 male bodybuilders and 20 young male adults. Energy intake (+ 7%), protein intake (128 vs 88 g/d/1.73 m2), and renal net acid excretion (95 vs 64 mmol/d/1.73 m2) were higher in the bodybuilders than in the controls, however, urine-pH was only slightly lower (5.83 vs 6.12). In the bodybuilders renal ammonium excretion was higher at any given value of urine pH than in the controls. In a regression analysis protein intake proved to be an independent factor modulating the ratio between urine-pH and renal ammonium excretion. The concomitant increase of renal net acid excretion and maximum renal acid excretion capacity in periods of high protein intake appears to be a highly effective response of the kidney to a specific food intake leaving a large renal surplus capacity for an additional renal acid load.

Re:What about the dangers?

[StandardDeviant]

Right, well, learn some organic chemistry. ;) No need to trust some random website, any college ochem text will do. Having ketones in your blood will alter your blood pH, with the affect dependent on the amount of ketones in solution. What's the "tipping point" between tolerable pH and the intolerably acidic pH found in ketoacidosis? That depends. Drop below that line and you're, well, pretty much fucked. The problem is that the symptoms of going too far (e.g. the breath odor mentioned in the linked article, spacey mentality, nausea (esp. after eating), tears that sting, etc.) only begin to show up after you've already crossed that line. Once you've crossed that line, you're increasingly risking internal organ (e.g. kidney) damage...

Again, I'm not just talking out my ass here, I've lived through that entire cycle, and in recent memory. In my academic life, I'm a chemistry major, so I have some understanding of the chemistry involved as well. Kidney failure sucks, and it really worries me when I see people casually saying that Atkins is great given that Atkins relies on being in a state that I know from personal experience is way too close to comfort to the hells of kidney failure. (To draw a more viscereal analogy: sure, there's a finite threshold of impact energy required to set off a vial of nitroglycerin, but do you want to be the one tapping on said vial to find that threshold? Once you find it, you'll be telling it to St. Peter...)

Executive summary for the lazy ;) : Ketosis is sort of like driving at highway speeds on the shoulder of a twisty mountain road that you can't see well. If you're very, very lucky you'll be ok, but you're also much closer to danger than normal.

Whatever. It's a free world and people can do whatever they want to their bodies. I'm just seeing a future where most of the linux kernel is being written by guys with laptops in dialysis wards. ;)

Re:What about the dangers?

[StandardDeviant]

Do you have any understanding of what a ketone is? Taken organic chemistry? Ketones are bad news, whatever the source, because of their effects on the pH of the solution (blood).

There's really no such thing as a good or safe level of ketones in your system, only what the body is nominally able to handle. Artificially seeking to boost this (thus lowering the pH of your blood, again this is basic chem), is really dangerous.

In the 70s tape worms were considered a valid way to diet (just kill off the worms when you're done, or so the theory went). Bad move, neh? Fooling around with your body chemistry via Atkins is, I feel, just the latest no-effort-required fad foolishness. The way to be right physically is pretty simple and well known, yet people persist in looking for shortcuts and cheats becuase, well, that's human nature. Sadly you can't shortcut or cheat Ma Nature...

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as ridiculous as believing that the diet is hard on your kidneys. Hard on gout, yes. Kidneys, no. Read Atkins research more carefully.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

List your personal qualifications with obesity and we'll be able to believe you more. A person who's never been overweight is unqualified to judge.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you weren't "on" Atkins. Doing the diet implies you are doing it correctly. Any diet recommends drinking plenty of water. Kidney stones can be encouraged by dehydration and drinking alkaline drinks.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking is not a crime and being a pedophile is not illegal. Child molesting is. Pedophiles and homosexuals are in no way linked. Kill all adults in the name of protecting children.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Atkins diet does not do away with veggies.

Atkins, if he were alive, would vigorously disagree with your heart disease, stroke and diabetes claims.
Diabetes in particular. Atkins frequently cures it as it did for my father. Your claims are not only absurd, but don't even appear to make sense on casual observation.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you forgot the part about drinking lots and lots of water.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Mononoke]

Right, well, learn some organic chemistry. ;) No need to trust some random website, any college ochem text will do...

I'll just say this much: The chemistry professor I live with has just passed another annual physical exam (by a doctor who's not entirely an Atkins fan, yet) with flying colors, after having lived the Atkins diet for the past 2 years and losing about 80 pounds.

Her cholesterols are down. All other vital signs are normal or better-than-normal. Her kidneys are fine. She's in better health now than she's been in her entire life.

I'm sorry you've had the problems you've had, but I don't believe they apply to the discussion of the Atkins diet.

Re:What about the dangers?

[beautiful_idiot]

Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups

This seems to be the biggest problem to me, besides the "long term studies are required" bit. Most popular diet plans will lose you weight if you stick with them -- the trouble is hardly anyone does (95% failure rate, according to the FDA). They're not ineffective; they're just really unpleasant and difficult to be on.

So if you're feeling lucky, and don't really like food (though I'm not sure how you got fat then), give one of these a shot. Otherwise you might want to try a system that acknowledges this grim statistic and targets the real culprit: not your belly, but your mind.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's just because you're so fucking fat that you have whale fetishists after you.

You bloated cocksucker, you.

Re:What about the dangers?

[gfxguy]

But what's interesting is that the Atkins diet (and similar low-carb diets) have been around since the late sixties. That's 30 years of research.

People who jump haphazardly onto the low-carb bandwagon are asking for trouble, the diets are very misunderstood. For example, you don't eliminate intake of carbohydrates, and you are instructed to keep them really low only for a few weeks, maybe a month or so, to kick off the diet (that's Atkins, many low carb diets step around that state, keep you at low carbs, but not too low).

The ultimate idea with Atkins and other low carb diets is to find the level of carbohydrates you can consume while not gaining weight - that's the last step in Atkins.

I've never been on Atkins, but I did see a nutritionist for six months. She put my wife and myself on low-carb diets, but that's not all there was too it. We GAINED muscle mass, but overall I lost over 60 pounds (which means I lost about 65 pounds of FAT). My energy levels stayed consistent throughout the day (no sugar highs and the subsequent crashes), I had acid reflux that I was taking pills for every day - it simply went away. I knew a diabetic who didn't have to take her medication as long as she followed the low-carb diet. My nutritionist also advocates a good work-out regime. When I told her my goal was to lose 50 pounds, I thought she'd tell me that it would take two years or so. She said six months - and I didn't lose 50 pounds in six months, I lost 60.

The truth is that for thousands of years mankind ate what we now consider a low-carb diet. Really, most of these low-carb diets only tell you to eat the way people have been eating since the dawn of mankind - meat, vegetables, fruit, and other unprocessed foods. Epidemic obesity coincides with mass production of refined sugar and flour. Obesity and diabetes surged with the wide spread use of corn syrup.

The notion that Atkins means eating a plate piled high with bacon with a couple of sticks of butter on top are just rediculous. They all advocate lower fat. The great thing about these diets, when you really examine them and not just give it the cursory "how can you eat fat and lose weight", or "but you need carbs!", but when you really look at what they are saying, it makes a lot of sense.

Let me sumarize my experience:

- lost 60 pounds.
- eat lots of fruit and vegetables.
- lower blood pressure.
- acid reflux GONE. If you've never had an acid reflux problem, I can't emphasize the importance of that.
- more muscle tissue now than when I started (according to the fat measuring scales, which seemed pretty consistent to me).
- sleep great (I used to have frequent insomnia).
- more consistent energy levels.

Now argue that I'm unhealthier now than I was when I started. Now, I haven't had my cholesterol levels checked, but most evidence I have points to people following low-carb having lower cholesterol levels, even as the consumption of cholesterol increases. The reasons is that the vast majority of the cholesterol in your blood is produced by your own body, not from consumption, and the blood sugar levels also affect this production. The evidence suggests that there is a surge for a couple of months, then the levels drop down below what they were before.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Seabass55]

You don't see thin eskimos because the amount of fats they take in. Clearly this wasn't my point but instead I was commenting on them having no carbs in their diet and it not being "unhealthy" like this strand of posts was all about. Thank but please move along..

Re:What about the dangers?

[gfxguy]

Thin != healthy (necessarily). With all the fat and protien in the eskimo diet (who retain fat for a simple reason - they are genetically disposed to it to help keep warm), they have lower heart disease and lower cholesterol than most other people.

Re:What about the dangers?

[gfxguy]

The post you are responding to is wrong, though, and he's only furthering some of the Atkins myths - NEVER NEVER NEVER is ZERO carbs allowed.

Re:What about the dangers?

[gfxguy]

You are absolutely right - we are carbo-centric, and that's the problem. And your body does adjust. Go on a low-carb diet for a year, then eat a piece of candy. It'll taste disgusting - you'll wonder how you could ever have eaten those things in the past.

Re:What about the dangers?

[toofanx]

I think this is another example of an inappropriate article for slashdot. I can't call myself a hacker (because the title should be conferred upon you by others), but I have dieted/excercised and lost weight.

What I found most helpful was simply being aware of what you eat. The most important point, IMHO, was to conciously eat all the vitamins, etc. the body needs, and to conciously rotate the food one eats to eat a variety of things. The next most important point was to excercise. I only needed to keep track of my calories - I did not cut down anything.

Infact, after starting a minimal excercise routine, my calorific intake went up dramatically. My weight went up slightly (and came down later), but my ponch went down, my waist size went down and I started to look better within a few weeks.

Personally, I think Atkins is over-hyped. I like to call my diet the do-what-you-feel diet. It actually helped me become a lot fitter - to really understand what it means to be fit.

Re:What about the dangers?

[aug24]

You might also be interested to hear that gout can be caused by incomplete protein breakdown. Both my brother and I have had it, due to exercising (cycling to work) and then just stopping, no warm down. In his case it was even worse: cycle, train, cycle.

The warm down, which in my case just means taking the last half mile easier, is all it takes to avoid the problem.

Of course, the average fat, bearded, unwashed, sysadmin doesn't cycle to work anyway...

J.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of 'em sews you back up...duh!

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I went from four times the average risk of a heart attack to one half the risk.

My doctor (who put me on this diet) showed me all my lab results (done 3 times / year) and explained how much better everything is overall.

Lower blood pressure. Less back pain. No longer colesterol problems. Etc.

I now maintain a weight of about 190. (pounds, not metric)

I am not in ketosis. I eat some carbohydrates in limited amounts. It varies. Somewhere between 30 and 60 grams / day. I eat only low-carb candies. Avoid all forms of bread (which I don't care for). Very different from when I would grab a large bag of chips and eat half the bag. Now, if I'm going to eat carbs, I'm going to spend them on something I really want to eat. A really good dessert, for instance. Not some cheap junk food.

I don't see how anyone can argue that I'm in worse health now than before I started? It's just insane.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Abm0raz]

Ketosis is a side effect of an IMPROPERLY followed Atkin's diet. Part of that is because Dr. Atkin's released enough of his diet to hook people. They start phase I (carb starving) and see immediate results then they never move onto Phase II (Carb stepping) or Phase III (Carb maintenance). Because most people don't read enough to know how or why slow their weight loss down, they tend to fail the diet and gain it all back or worse, do severe damage to themselves.

Also, anyone that does a diet, the FIRST thing you should do is talk to your doctor. I did the Atkins and lost 34 pounds in 31 days (310 to 276). I went back to my doctor for my monthly check-up and she took me off of it and did blood tests. My test came back fine and I was greenlighted to go back on it, but I haven't yet. I've been off of it for 6 months and put 12 pounds back on.

At the same time, my girlfriend was told to stay off of the Atkin's diet because she had a really bad kidney infection when she was a freshman in college. She spent 3 days in the hospital and has a lot of scarring on hers. Her body can't process the ketone byproducts of fatty-acid metabolism. (she also pees every other hour like clockwork). Because she can't do the Atkin's, I've chosen not to go back on it. It makes it a bit inconvenient to cook meals.

-Ab

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been plenty of studies showing that high protein intake actually improves a health kidney's function. All of the kidney damage FUD is from basically one old study showing that kidney patients on high-protein diets furthers the damage.

The low-carb diets may be billed as "high-protein" but in reality are high-fat. High-fat is good, as we are designed genetically to be good at burning fat.

In addition, zero carb intake, which is not really possible if you eat meat (which contains a small amount of carbohydrate naturally), is NOT bad for you. Try doing a google on Stephanson and the 1928 experiment at Bellevue hospital in NYC.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a fat bitch is not healthy. Implying that fat geeks are losing weight simply because they want to look good is ridiculous. Being fat is bad for your kidneys. Being fat is probably the most unhealthy body condition one can suffer from. Your kidneys will be fine. It's a bit of a workout for them.. But losing weight will greatly increase your kidneys ability to do their work.

Re:What about the dangers?

[madcow_ucsb]

yea but the question was how do you know? my gf got it when she was 20 - no family history, no early symptoms, just one month she suddenly lost tons of weight, went to the doctor, and he just said "sorry..."

So if only those predisposed to it can get it (I'll take your word for it, I didn't know that) I'd say that there are a LOT of people predisposed to it who don't have a clue that they are.

Re:What about the dangers?

[enomar]

My point exactly. Try reading the post next time.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Atkins was a heart doctor.. But he died from a heart attack. hahahahah.. His Cholesterol was really low though.

Re:What about the dangers?

[hesiod]

> "18% v. 21% for the nation in 2001"
> 21% - 18% = 3%
> As in +/-3% sample error?

Well, more like 1.5%... The true result would be 19.5% +/- 1.5%, no? Granted, I'm no statistician.

Re:What about the dangers?

[hesiod]

> You can't see the difference between what two consenting adults do and somebody imposing their will on a minor?

Umm, the latter is called rape. What about the off chance that the child actually wants to have sex (Doubt it ever happens, but it's possible)? Then they are not imposing their will on the child. Is it still wrong? I think so, but I don't have any reason for that view other than the standard cop-out "Think of the children!"

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is America. Here the Earth is Apartment.

Re:What about the dangers?

[4of12]

I believe that a diet rich in sugar is at least as hard on your kidneys as a diet rich in protein.

Good advice in any event is to drink plenty of water.

And, having done the related Protein Power diet myself a couple of years ago, I'd say that it's very important to eat plenty of vegetables and to get plenty of potassium.

Considering how easy it is for potassium imbalances to occur during this diet, I'd not recommend it for anyone with a weak heart.

Practically, BTW, the diet works, is a bitch to keep on for very long. The only thing you can eat from the convenience store is water and beef jerky.

Also, at the 3 day point into the macronutrient switch I felt like I'd been hit with a killer hangover.

After everything is said and done, though, I'm going more towards a balanced diet, trying to mimic foods that were eaten 20K years ago; I'll have some complex carbs and avoid refined sugar, refined flour, high starch potatoes. But I'm not crazy about trying to get my total carbs under 100g/day anymore.

Finally, protein rich diets are more like underclocking IMO. A high sugar diet is a sure way to burn out fast.

Re:What about the dangers?

[CustomDesigned]

I didn't say anything about "no carb". I pointed out that real, as opposed to imaginary, Atkins programs have a balance of carbs, fat, and protein. Really low carbs are not recommended except for a short initial time period. And not by all systems.

No carb is *not* good for you. The Atkins diet simply corrects the way too much carb in a typical western diet.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Theaetetus]

fully appreciate that some people definitely need to reduce their weight simply for health reasons. But if you're so weak-willed that you'd rather damage your body than make an effort then you're setting yourself up for having to stay on that diet forever, aren't you? And that can't be good...

Oh, don't know about that. Read Atkin's book - he talks about his diet (at least at the beginning) as being an unbalanced diet. If it were balanced, you wouldn't lose weight. As is, it's unbalanced, and you drop pounds like water from a duck's back. Eventually, you start increasing the amount of carbs until the diet is balanced for you, and that's the proper amount.

As for weak-willed... I was previously 290# (I'm 6'6", so I wasn't huge, but I was overweight). Low-fat and reduced-calorie diets were nearly impossible for me, and increased exercise was also not immediately possible (coming just out of appendix surgery - ouch). So, I started Atkins, and dropped 70 pounds over 3 months. At 220, I started exercising, and moved towards a more moderate diet.

Three years later now, I'm still 220, work out 4 times a week, and have a hottie girlfriend that I never could have before. Any long-term damage due to the three months of dieting (which is doubtful) is severely offset by the drastic increase in quality of life. Additionally, I'd say I'm much healthier now, about 15% body fat lower.

-T

Re:What about the dangers?

[fanatic]

Do you have any understanding of what a ketone is?

There's really no such thing as a good or safe level of ketones in your system,

Right, so the instant you run out of carbohydrates in the digestion pipeline, you immediately lpase into a profoundly unhealty state? Nice try, but fat and its use evolved as a backup energy storage mechanism.

Artificially seeking to boost this (thus lowering the pH of your blood, again this is basic chem), is really dangerous.

Why does everybody think it's so easy to change the PH of your blood? The body resists this mightily.

In the 70s tape worms were considered a valid way to diet

Which has nothing at all to do with the current arument. Your attempt to drag this crap in is a complete red herring.

Re:What about the dangers?

[threadsafe_r]

Probably posted by another diabetic somewhere in this discussion...

This diet has allowed me to cut in half the medicine I take for controlling type II diabetes. That alone has compelled me to stick with the diet. Consider also that weight control is another important facet to controlling the disease and Atkins looks pretty good from were I sit. I could give a rats-ass about social perception. It has real impacts to quality of life and might even in some instances allow a few to live longer.

So FOFFYFPOS.

Re:What about the dangers?

[RandyF]

I've got to weigh in on this one (hehehe..)

A lot of people look at the Atkins (God rest his soul) diet and get freaked out. The first two weeks start a process that he called "lipolysis" (however you spell it...). This two week "induction" process would kick in the fat burning process and set you up for the rest of the diet. This period is a red meat and no carb vegitable diet that would scare the hell out of any sane nutritionist. The point is that it ONLY LASTS FOR TWO WEEKS! After this point, you add some low carb fruits and more vegitables to balance out your diet. Any idiot that stays on the induction phase for longer than needed gets what they deserve. Especially because Dr. Atkins WARNS you not to! As you get closer to your target weight, the diet is further modified to gently slow down the weight loss and retrain you for a permanent healthy maintenance diet.

I'm not saying that the Atkins diet works for everyone. It doesn't. It has worked for most men that have studied and really stuck to it.

As for the gall stones, I've seen it more often in people who eat high carb mixed with high fat. i.e. you can't cheat the carbs on Atkins or you're asking for it.

As far as the kidney stones, I've got this great home remedy that I found in some home remedy health book. I don't know if it works but it sounds great. Every six months or so, get a six pack of beer and chug one every 30 minutes. It's supposed to flush out any forming stones before they get out of hand. Unfortunately, it also flushes out the formed stones (eeek...) but it gets rid of them. I'm not a doctor so don't blame me if it causes problems ;^>

Re:What about the dangers?

[Hinder90]

If you follow the diet, not just parts of the diet, it will work for you. Of course if you have any health conditions, you should consult you doc first, but otherwise as long as you get your fiber, vitamins and plenty of water you will not suffer ill effects like the doomsayers above. I lost 30 pounds this summer, and I am starting to eat more carbs now (within reason) and have not gained the weight back. I feel much better, I don't have spike-and-crash metabolism due to excess sugar and starch intake, and to boot I feel more self confident because I'm not a fatass anymore. My girlfriend did the diet with me and she lost 25 pounds- and she looks great. Another friend, who was the embodiment of the morbidly obese hacker, has now lost over 80 pounds since February, and was pretty much the living proof needed to shut me up with my nay-saying and get me on board.

Before your knee jerks to put Atkins down, do some research. If you can't bring yourself to do that, perhaps the reason is that you yourself are looking for excuses to not change your habits and stop being such a fatass.

If a diet works for you, awesome- stick with it. If it doesn't, move on, but don't put it down when so many others are realizing its benefits.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.

This whole debate between low-fat or low-carb is interesting.

Diabetes or Dialysis: which shall I choose for my old age?

Re:What about the dangers?

[fanatic]

Again, I'm not just talking out my ass here, I've lived through that entire cycle, and in recent memory.

Again, the question is HOW did this happen? Ketoacidosis doesn't happen by itself. Were you a diabetic with poorly controlled blood sugar? If so, current thinking is that chronic hyperglycemia causes kidney damage, while the lack of insulin that caused the hyperglycemia also leads to ketoacidosis. I am not a doctor or a chemist, but I am a type 2 diabetic who has had good results on all tests (including liver and kidney tests, as well the A1c and blood fat profiles) when following a limited carb regime and exercising.

Re:What about the dangers?

[jafuser]

Many people are looking for shortcuts becase is it is very hard to get started on a traditional diet & exercise plan if you're already very overweight.

The low-carb diet is a good way to get started since it helps many people drop enough weight that exercise becomes much more bearable (and safer for your body).

As to the long-term benefits, we know little. But for the short term, it is an effective way to catalyzing a new, healthier lifestyle.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anontroll]

"On top of all of that, diets high in proteins and fats (Like the Atkins diet) predispose folks to heart disease, strokes and diabetes." But then again beiong overweight also predisposes folks to heart disease, strokes and diabetes.

Re:What about the dangers?

[DuckDodgers]

With the exception of the individual upthread who mentioned some problems, I have yet to hear of anyone who had health problems after Atkins.

That doesn't mean it's impossible for them to happen, but I'd say it's unlikely.

Re:What about the dangers?

[jbx]

Actually, I *have* heard of GOUT, and I've got one or two questions.

First, background: I've lost 47 pounds on Atkins this year, but have gained 17 of it back (because I just couldn't resist all the candy around the office), and now I'm on it again...

I got all my background info from atkinscenter.com, because my initial reaction to Atkins was to keep my distance, and I didn't want to put any money in their pockets. On the site, in addition to the normal don't-eat-carbs mantra, there were two side recommendations that struck out at me:

1) Drink lots of water. 64 ounces per day, they said.

2) Take a vitamin supplement each day. Good advice regardless.

I did these two things, and Atkins so far has been the easiest weight loss ever for me, and the only loss I've ever had that didn't require daily exercise. (Side note: exercise is good regardless of diet... I ought to be getting more of it.)

My question to you is: did you drink extra water while on Atkins, and did you take vitamins?

jorg

Re:What about the dangers?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as the kidney stones, I've got this great home remedy that I found in some home remedy health book. I don't know if it works but it sounds great. Every six months or so, get a six pack of beer and chug one every 30 minutes. It's supposed to flush out any forming stones before they get out of hand. Unfortunately, it also flushes out the formed stones (eeek...) but it gets rid of them. I'm not a doctor so don't blame me if it causes problems

Does doing it every week make me more heathy then? :)

Re:What about the dangers?

[KDan]

I do not support the anti-homosexual argument, but I'd just like to point out that there can be consensual pedophilia too, and it's no less illegal. If you convince an 8-year old boy or girl to suck your dick, it's still paedophilia even if you didn't force him.

I think the thin line is, sadly, that blurry one of "age of consent", ie that completely arbitrary age that we've made up to decide who can have sex and who cannot. It's very imperfect, but it's the best we have so far. Paedophilia/statutory rape occurs any time someone from one side of the line has sex with someone from the other side... whether they've both agreed to it or not.

Daniel

Re:What about the dangers?

[Arthur Dent]

Well, you've heard wrong. The Atkins diet is not 'extremely harsh' on kidneys and has been around in one form or another since the 1880's. (Google on 'Banting Diet' for more information). With people on this diet for over a 100 years, you can be sure that if there were any side effects, there would be a lot more information on it than the hearsay nonsense you are spouting.

But what do I know, this is ./ after all :)

Re:What about the dangers?

[Arthur Dent]

That's the most ridiculous crap I've ever heard. If you're in dialysis someday with kidney failure, you'll realize that your health is far more important than social perception.

I don't see how this comment could be moderated 'insightful'!
Insightful, my ass. What a troll.

FYI: The low-carbohydrate diet has been around since the 1880's. Google for 'Banting diet'.

Now, if this diet was causing renal failure, don't you think someone would have noticed by now?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Arthur Dent]

Do you have any understanding of what a ketone is? Taken organic chemistry? Ketones are bad news, whatever the source, because of their effects on the pH of the solution (blood).

Maybe, you should go learn the difference between organic chemistry and bio-chemistry. Here, let me help you get started

"Simply put, ketosis is evolution's answer to the thrifty gene. We may have evolved to efficiently store fat for times of famine, says Veech, but we also evolved ketosis to efficiently live off that fat when necessary. Rather than being poison, which is how the press often refers to ketones, they make the body run more efficiently and provide a backup fuel source for the brain. Veech calls ketones ''magic'' and has shown that both the heart and brain run 25 percent more efficiently on ketones than on blood sugar."

Re:What about the dangers?

[Ieshan]

Well, the original poster said:

"They can repair the damage to my kidneys -- they can't repair the damage to my soul."

And then I replied with:

"If you're in dialysis someday with kidney failure, you'll realize that your health is far more important than social perception."

I'm not sure why you think that's a troll, but perhaps you could explain how you failed to miss the point?

Re:What about the dangers?

[Arthur Dent]

Yup. I did miss the point. I assumed that you were refering to the diet causing kidney failure.
I'll go back to reading ./ at -1 as penance now.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Slime-dogg]

The best way to control your blood pH is by drinking water. You're a chemistry buff, you should know how dilution works. If you're saying that the pH of your blood was so wacked that it caused kidney failure, I'm willing to bet that you spent most of your time sucking down soda and beer... sugar dehydrates you, and alcohol is an ADHI (Anti-Diuretic-Hormone-Inhibitor).

Don't go bad-mouthing ketosis and the diet by virtue of ketones and imbalanced blood pH, because the actual diets recommend regulation of the pH through sufficient amounts of water.

Ketosis is like driving at highway speeds, yes. Ketosis while drinking lots of water is like those speeds in the middle on Arizona, on a very flat and straight road. Ketosis without water is a very foolish thing to do indeed.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Spock the Baptist]

No.

I'm not a statistician, but rather a physicist. That being said, I have had a couple of three graduate courses in statistics.

Let's use as an example of an election in which Mr. Gray (Dem.) vs. Mr. Brown (GOP). The polls have a sample error of +/-3% at the 95% confidence level. Mr. Gray is polling at 45%, and Mr. Brown at 49%.

Using your interpretation, as there is a greater than 3% difference in the polling of the two candidates then the difference between the two candidates is statistically significant, but that interpretation is wrong. The +/-3% error is applied to the 45% of Mr. Gray, and also to the 48% of Mr. Brown. Thus, Mr. Gray is actually somewhere between 42% and 48% inclusive. Whereas, Mr. Brown is actually somewhere between 45%, and 52% inclusive. So, Mr, Gray could be actually be as high as 48%, whereas Mr. Brown could actually be as low as 45%. Therefore, Mr. Brown may actually be behind Mr. Gray.

Here's how to look at it.

IF: x% - y% is less than, or equal to 2*z%, then there is NOT a statistically significant difference in the poll,

but

IF: x% - y% is greater than 2*z%, then there IS a statistically significant difference in the poll.

Your interpretation divided whereas it should have multiplied.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Spock the Baptist]

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml is an excellent sourse of information on sample error, his website http://www.robertniles.com is highlly recomended in general.

Re:What about the dangers?

[banjobear]

My bias is anti-atkins (I tried it for a month, lost about ten pounds, felt terrible, and adopted a more reasonable calorie-counting diet which has lost me another 20 pounds), but the claim that the high-protein diets can cause permanent kidney damage is rubbish. It's just something that everyone repeats--there aren't any studies proving a link. That said, Atkins works, and it almost certainly works because you are lowering calories and the fat and protein that you're eating is helping to suppress your appetite. When I was on the diet, I ate sirloin steaks for breakfast and lunch, because that's what I like to eat. But by four in the afternoon I was feeling pretty full and after some meaty dinner I wouldn't have eaten over about 1800-2000 calories on an average day (2700 maintains my weight). IMHO the uncontested "man who understands the most" about low-carb diets is Lyle Mcdonald. Google his name or "ketogenic diet" and you'll find everything you want to know. Not that that'll simply stop people saying that it's bad for your kidneys, but whatever.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Roto-Rooter Man]

never thought i would ever hear anyone describe themselves as a "fat gay nerd" on this site.

Oh c'mon. If there is one site I would pick out as a meeting place for fat gay nerds, slashdot would be it.

Re:What about the dangers?

[crazyphilman]

Thanks for the tip! I hadn't heard about this, glad I didn't find out the hard way! ;)

Re:What about the dangers?

[crazyphilman]

Yes to both. I drank a LOT of water, I mean, I drink a lot of water anyway, atkins or no, because I think it's more refreshing than just about anything else, but I drank a lot under Atkins. And, yes, I do take my vitamins.

If you're susceptible to gout, you'll get gout NOT because you're not drinking enough water, and NOT because you don't take your vitamins, but because your body doesn't dispose of uric acid quickly enough and protein breaks down into uric acid in the blood, at which point it collects in the large joints of your feet as uric acid crystals.

If you fish down through the Atkins FAQ's, and you find the guy who asked about gout (specifically I think he asked about Allopurinol, which is one treatment for gout) the Atkins people specifically tell him NOT to do Atkins. "It's not for everyone" they say.

I think it's in extremely poor taste for you to defend your favorite diet by blaming ME for my attack of gout. But, this being slashdot, such things are to be expected.

Re:What about the dangers?

[Tofino]

Every six months or so, get a six pack of beer and chug one every 30 minutes.

Best. Diet. Ever.

convenient for hackers

[DirtyJ]

The Atkins diet is really very convenient for hackers. All you have to do is order your standard pepperoni pizza, and then throw away everything below the pepperoni.

Re:convenient for hackers

[fermion]

This statement is more insightful than funny. The people I have seen atkins work well on are those that had a diet of fast food and candy. This meant that most of the calories they consumed were nutritionally empty. The candy, white pizza crust, low quality fat, soft drink, etc, provided significant calories with no nutrition, resulting in them eating more to get the needed nutrition. By eliminating the simple carbohydrates, they could continue to eat food that was pretty much nutritionally deficient, but end up consuming fewer calories overall, as there is a limit to the amount of low quality fat a body can tolerate.

The problem with most other diets is that those diets assume that people can conveniently get a balanced meal, which in the US at least, is damn near impossible.

I like Atkins

[Anonymous Coward]

Meat and cheese are good.

Healthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

How healthy is this diet?

And of the people I know who swear by it, I haven't noticed them looking any thinner. Of course, that is true for all the diets :(

How about

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting off the computer for a while and do something really complicated known as *excercise*. When your next installing gentoo linux go and and take a long walk.

Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Atkins is dead.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

Slipt, fell, concussed. Nothing to do with a diet. Move along please.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

Atkins is dead.

So is Stephen King, but that doesn't suddenly make him a bad writer. Truly an American icon.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Veramocor]

If your arguement is don't use atkins diet because atkins died, it is a little disingenuous since Atkins died because he fell on some ice, hit his head, and had a brain aneurysm.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

So is Stephen King, but that doesn't suddenly make him a bad writer.

You're right. The things that make Stephen King a bad writer have nothing to do with whether he's alive or dead.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

So, DUH! Don't you see the connection?

Don't use the Atkins diet if you don't want to end up like Atkins did: a famous doctor with a secure job, decent income, married, and dead after a whole seventy-two years of life.

Geeze.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[KDan]

Stephen King's not dead you doofus.

Daniel

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, YHBT YHL HAND. Learn from this mistake.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

Stephen King is undead

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[mr_walrus]

hell fell from all that dizzying euphoria for having lost weight...

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

wow, look at all the suckers i reeled in ...

I just said Atkins is dead, I never claimed he died because of his screwy diet. Although I like the response that claims he was light-headed from the diet when he fell.

Get some common sense here people!

The ONLY way to loose weight is to burn more calories than you consume. There is simply no other way.

Atkins is one way of accomplishing this, One where many have had success, and many have made themselves sick.

BUT, like users of the Q-Ray ionized bracelet, a dumbass sucker is born every minute and you'll only hear the 'successful' point of view - no one wants to admit they were dumb enough to get screwed.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, look at all the suckers i reeled in ...

Yeah, all 2 of them, given the Stephen King post was clearly a joke.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

Just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[kelzer]

Atkins died because he fell on some ice, hit his head, and had a brain aneurysm.

Maybe he fell because his blood sugar was too low, and he blacked out. Maybe if he'd only had a Snickers bar beforehand, he'd still be alive today, still collecting mega-royalties from all those diet books.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

Two! This man is a master troller. (Personally I thought he was making a BSD is dead joke.)

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if his percentage body fat was higher, his noggin could have taken a few more Gs.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[John Jorsett]

Atkins is dead

Well, a few more words are necessary: slipped on an icy walk.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[MochaMan]

Has Netcraft confirmed it?

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Thavius]

See? This supports the whole Atkins hacker diet. All we need to do is eat no carbs, and NOT walk! We'll be skinny, and have no danger of falling on ice! After all, the time spent walking could be time spent configuring the newest kernel.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[cfuse]

Atkins is dead.

Was it something he ate?

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when I first heard about Dr. Atkins' death. I was listening to a local talk radio show in Portland, and someone called in and said Atkins is dead. It was sad news indeed -- and the weight loss community misses him. Dr. Atkins is truly an American icon.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Doctor Faustus]

Just so long as we don't see "Dr. Atkins Balance Improving Diet" published posthumously.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Alereon]

Not walking is what hackers do already. What do you think caused the calorie buildup?

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use Windows unless you want to end up the world's richest man.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

...though maybe if he was fatter, he would've had more cushioning and survived!

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

nah - he slipped on all the baked animal grease oozing out of his house...

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

The plural form of the word 'word' in your thread title should not have an apostrope- here's a helpful guide. Also, the verb 'says' in the title should agree with your subject, so should be 'say'. In the second-to-last sentence of this post, your use the adjective 'loose' should instead be verb 'lose'.

I wish you luck in the process of learning the English language. I realize it's a difficult language for people who didn't speak it in childhood.

Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Dr. Atkins is truly an American icon.

Or rather, an "icon/artist." :)

unemploying geekism

[Anonymous Coward]

New excuse for geeks to use at work: Overclocked and Underpaid.

Easiest diet ever...

[bucketoftruth]

Eat less, excercise more. It's free and easy. It's covered under the GNU diet license so feel free to share with other fatties.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[bobwoodard]

I actually ended up eating more, but it didn't matter, since I made sure the stuff I was eating didn't impact the diet in a negative way (no more Moutain Dew!).

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[KDan]

That's alright, the GNU Diet Licence allows you to make any changes you want to your diet so long as you don't make a proprietary Slim-Fast type milkshake out of it.

Daniel

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is always Diet Mountain Dew.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[Tablizer]

There is always Diet Mountain Dew.

I have never seen that. What store sells it?

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[linzeal]

Safeway does on the west coast, and I haev seen it at Piggly Wiggly when I visit my mom in the carolinas.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[jd_esguerra]

Free and easy? Maybe. If you are morbidly obese, it is relatively easy to see an immediate (weeks) improvement in shape. But there might not be too big a change in weight as muscle tissue is built up. I've been trying to lose about 20lbs, and I have not been very successful. This is with 6 hours of weight training a week and 6 hours of fat burn/intense cardio per week. Food has been the big issue. Problem is that I am already in OK shape, so turning up the execise just ramped up my metabolism. Through my MS engineering program (where I hit my all-time low for healthy living), I never ate breakfast or lunch. Now, if I don't eat a sizable breakfast, by 10AM my Zaurus begins to look like an oatmeal cream pie. MMMmmmmm ppiiieee.

I agree, if you are "fat," eat less, exercise more. I'd also suggest planning your food intake at the times when you are most hungry, not at the traditional meal times (though they often coincide). This will help prevent cheating. For people who are just trying to shed a few pounds through exercise, Cutting back on your food intake might not be the best course of action. You might actually have to eat more.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[AJWM]

Most big grocery stores should carry Diet 'Dew. I've got a couple cases in the garage. Including that wierd new red stuff.

(Sugar aside, I prefer diet sodas because spilling such on the desk or keyboard doesn't cause anywhere near the sticky mess that something loaded with corn syrup would.)

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[fiftyfly]

No, they just taste bad, are (like reg soda) diuretics, and aspartame seems to have trouble dodging claims about fudged research for it's FDA approval.....

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... muscle weighs more than fat...therefore with your weight training, you've probably been gaining weight in muscle, instead of losign it by getting rid of the fat.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[Simon Lyngshede]

Yep, that's the one. Works every time.

The good thing about this way of losing weight is that you also get bigger muscles, looks a bit nicer that way, at least when your my size. 2.05 meters look really stupid if you don't have either fat or a bit of muscles.

I really hate when I hear people say "I tried 20 different diets and im not losing weight" and the only thing they didn't try is eating right (you don't even have to eat less, just eat right) and excercising. It's not hard, it takes time, but it's not hard. Find a sport you like, most people will find something they like doing. Personally I enjoy biking and rowing.

Oh and I think that would be a public domain diet, not GNU.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat less, excercise more. It's free and easy.

If you're in shape, I agree. If you're quite overweight, it can be very difficult. If you have a low metabolism, that can make things extremely difficult.
Try being motivated to get off the couch if you have zero energy. Once you're off the couch, feeling tired and shitty, then try and make the leap to a regular exercise regime. Moral support is critical.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[jd_esguerra]

Dude... muscle weighs more than fat...therefore with your weight training, you've probably been gaining weight in muscle, instead of losign it by getting rid of the fat.

Yup. But I expected that. I've been gaining back lost muscle and losing the waistline/flab. That's exactly what I expected to happen , initially anyway. I'm 6'0" and 230 lbs. Not obese chunky or bulky, just big. When I graduated from highschool I was 165lbs and running a lot-- no weights. (Think beanpole). Had a good power/weight ratio back then. Now, I'm lot stronger, but also a hell of a lot heavier. So running, climbing etc are not as pain-free. I'm not going to get back down to 165-175 without losing a lot of muscle. But I'd settle for 210. Rebuilding of muscle will stabilize in the next few months, then I'll see reduction in weight as fat lbs begin to go. I've seen it/done it before. (After my BS.) Being "heavy" isn't too bad. As long as the mass is in the right places!

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[AJWM]

Personally I prefer the taste of diet soda (at least, Diet Coke) over the corn syrupy stuff. As for aspartame, I'm not too worried about a molecule that's mainly two harmless (except to phenlyketoneuretics) amino acids, and thirty years of consuming the stuff hasn't hurt me so far.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[Tablizer]

Safeway [carries it] on the west coast, and I haev seen it at Piggly Wiggly when I visit my mom...

What kind of genious marketing puts the word "pig" in its store name? What is next, "Lard Butt Burgers"? "Supersize Your Ass"?

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[fiftyfly]

Personally I prefer the taste of diet soda (at least, Diet Coke) over the corn syrupy stuff. As for aspartame, I'm not too worried about a molecule that's mainly two harmless (except to phenlyketoneuretics) amino acids, and thirty years of consuming the stuff hasn't hurt me so far.

Ah yes, the ever popular statistical sample of one.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[adamfranco]

In the most basic way, this is what the WeightWatchers diet is. After trying just about every diet out there (with little success) I started on the WeightWatchers program. I must say that it is the most reasonable and straight forward diet that CONTINUES to work in the long term. The one and only rule of the plan:

CaloriesIn = CaloriesOut

Basically, the WeightWatchers plan just simplifies the calculation of how many calories you are taking in and burning so that you can keep the ratio appropriate. When I first started last month I was quite surprized to find out that on my average day I was eating about TWICE what I needed. I eat pretty healthily in general, bike to work, and do ~15 hours of aerobic exercize per week, but it was all those little things that kept blowing my calorie intake through the roof and preventing weightloss. A perfectly healthy meal can be completely ruined by ranch dressing, cream in my coffee, a butter pat, and a cookie.

Anyway, to make an increasingly long story short, via the WeightWatchers program I learned where my food choices could be slightly modified in order to drastically cut my calorie intake. You only loose 2 pounds per week, but you just keep loosing it without any cravings, since there are no "banned" items. If you want cheesecake or a big night out, bank up points the rest of the week or exercize that day. Just keep that "CaloriesIn = CaloriesOut" equation true.

Oh a more geek note: The WeightWatchers site is pretty awesome. Their browser sniffer doesn't like Mozilla Firebird, but spoofing to Netscape fixes that. The main part is a "Points tracker" interface where you search for and enter what you ate for the day. Its really easy and they have a HUGE database of the "Points (TM)" values for just about every food. No need to read the nutrition info on packages. Lots of other cool stuff like a weight-tracker which plots your weekly weight progress. Just well designed stuff (with the exception of the browser sniffer bit).

Sorry to keep ranting on, but this has been the most helpful thing for me primarily because there is no gimmick. There's just education on where to find and how to go about eating fewer calories in every-day fair.

Anyway, I hope this helps someone. The $45 fee for the online service is DEFINATELY worth it. If nothing else, it gives you a monitary guilt trip for sticking to it for the first month. :-) My first month I lost 10 pounds (199lbs down from 209 at 5'10") and am continuing to drop. And, I still eat cheesecake; just now on days where I exercize enough to make up for it.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[linzeal]

Piggly Wiggly rocks, from what I have seen of it. Imagine a white trash superstore, oh the greatness of it. Imagine being able to buy pork rinds that are microwaveable or the newest plastic lawn furniture all in one go!

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[Tablizer]

Piggly Wiggly rocks, from what I have seen of it. Imagine a white trash superstore, oh the greatness of it.

That might be true, but you don't advertise that you target white trash. It would be like a Casino called the "Fry-in-Hell Casino". You emphasize the "glamour" side of things, not the bad stereotypes or guilt.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[Your Login Here]

Actually Diet Coke isn't just Coke with aspratame, it's a different cola altogether. In fact, after it was introduced the managers were so impressed with the results from the tast tests they decided to try it with sugar (ie corn syrup).

That led to the new Coke. And the rest is history.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[AJWM]

Ah yes, the ever popular statistical sample of one.

Well, in this instance, that sample is 100% of the population that I'm particularly concerned about. ;-)

The environment (including the food we eat) is, always has been, and always will be full of nasty things that might kill us quickly or slowly or not at all depending on the dosage. Most of the worst are naturally occuring, including both slow and fast. (Read up, for example, on the mechanisms by which oxalic acid (in rhubarb leaves) or the amanita mushroom toxin kill. Nasty. Or about aflatoxin, which unlike the previous two is in everyday food.) Every food we eat contains biochemicals that, were they produced in a lab rather than naturally in a plant or animal, would never be approved for consumption by the FDA, and many would probably cause the food to be classified as "hazardous waste".

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

the points thing is a scam

if its a Butterfingers candy bar its zero points (or insert whatever random marketing oppurtunity that paid for it)

the points thing used to be accurate. now it just allows to much cheating by which ever company wants to pay.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[adamfranco]

if its a Butterfingers candy bar its zero points (or insert whatever random marketing oppurtunity that paid for it)

Well, I just looked up Butterfinger and got a result of 6 Points, or about 1/5 of my daily total. Seems to be pretty accurate. Like I said before, I like this because of the lack of gimmick. No products (shakes, bars, etc) being pushed as far as I can tell.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[mrtroy]

Eat BETTER, not neccessarily less, and excercise more.

Eating too little can cause your body's metabolism to go way down and store all extra energy in the body as fat.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[jafuser]

How does this differ from calorie counting?

Would it be not much different to just say you have "18 points" to spend per day (1800 calories), and just read the calories from everything you eat and divide by 100 for the points?

I don't really understand the system, as it sounds like the exact same thing, except it costs money to have access to some private table of points?

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[jafuser]

If you're in shape, I agree. If you're quite overweight, it can be very difficult. If you have a low metabolism, that can make things extremely difficult.

The Atkins + Hacker diet is a good way to get started.

The graphs that you get from the Hacker diet are very encouraging, especially early on when it's hard to get started.

They both involve minimal exercise, which might be a good way to start since exercise can be exponentially difficult the more overweight you are.

Of course once you've lost some weight and start feeling better, you can start to adapt to your own system, especially if you start to crave carbohydrates again which then you can counteract with exercise since it will be easier at that point.

Re:Easiest diet ever...

[adamfranco]

It doesn't differ from calorie counting with the exception of fiber content affecting the value.

Why would I pay $45 for it? Well, they have a huge database of both generic and brand-name foods with the values already worked out. I head to, say Au Bon Pain and eat their Turkey Club. Searching the database reveals 14points (and allows me to pop it over to my day's meals), no more measuring or looking up ingredients needed. Likewise, the online points tracker and low-calorie recipie search are just easy to use. For me, the difficulty of other diets caused me to stop using them after a short time. This is so easy that I have no excuse not to stick with it.

It works.

[Cpt_Kirks]

5 weeks. 15 pounds (so far).

I eat low carb cereal for breakfast, have meat, veggie and sugar free jello for lunch, more meat and a salad for supper. I have beef jerky, sugar free candy and sugar free jello for snacks.

I ate a lot of fat the first week. When I got used to it, I cut the fat. I walk around the block twice after supper.

Easiest diet I ever tried. I am aiming to lose 45-50lbs total.

Re:It works.

[VistaBoy]

You gotta cut the sugar-free Jello. I do Atkins, and aspartame will definitely either slow down your weight loss or cause a plateau. Try the artificial sweetener Splenda, chemical name sucralose. It's really good, and it doesn't have any metabolic effects.

I've lost about 40 pounds on this diet, and I've feel the best I ever have felt before. Way more strength, stamina, and surprisingly mental power.

Re:It works.

[jonfelder]

Veggie jello maybe...but meat jello...I dunno if I could handle a diet that had you eating meat jello. I suppose one could get used to it though. ;-)

Re:It works.

[soulsteal]

My parents have been on and off the Atkins diet for the last 3 years or so. They would start the diet at the beginning of the year and stay on it hardcore for about 3 months while walking nightly and working out regularly. After the first 3 months, they slowly started introducing carbs back into their diet as to lessen the effect when they did go back to eating carbs. My mother managed to lose about 70 pounds.

Be careful and have a good plan on how to re-introduce carbohydrates back into your system.

Re:It works.

[Cpt_Kirks]

I read the book. I use sucralose where possible. More and more low carb stuff uses sucralose. There are also some other sweeteners out, or coming out. All the sugar free Hersheys stuff use manitol, which has the extra advantage of being a laxative (eat mostly protein and you will see what I mean).

I am averaging 3lbs a week with some aspartine and about half my formerly toxic caffine level. That's fine with me. I am planning on my first trip off the wagon at Thankgiving. I should be under 200lbs by then.

Re:It works.

[Cpt_Kirks]

Just eat the jello at the top of a can of vienna sausages or spam even...

Re:It works.

[Cpt_Kirks]

Yeah, I'm in it for the long run. My dads' cardiologist lost 40lbs in 14 months. Slow and easy. His cholesterol is down too.

I have very high cholesterol and triglycerides. Since I now eat no sugar, I wonder what effect this will have. I am going to have it checked in a couple of weeks.

Re:It works.

[Anonymous Coward]

" I walk around the block twice after supper. ... Easiest diet I ever tried. I am aiming to lose 45-50lbs total."

This is what's wrong with the Atkins diet (and dieting in general). People use it as an "easy" short-cut to being healthy when in reality it's just short-term fix for a poor lifestyle that builds long term health problems.

You want to know how to lose those pounds easily and permanently? Eat a well balanced diet and do some real exercise on a regular basis. Walking twice round the block is not real exercise unless you live on a very large block and walk fast enough to raise your heart rate to give your cardio vascular system a work out (e.g. run).

Keeping fit is not hard. If you change your lifestyle, becoming and staying fit and healthy is very, very easy.

Re:It works.

[JaredOfEuropa]

When I got used to it, I cut the fat.

No need. In fact, Atkins warned about this: Do not try to do Atkins as a low carb AND low fat diet. One of his messages was to forget the rule 'all fat is bad'. Eat the fat, don't worry about it.

But you're right, it is a very easy diet. They say every diet works as long as you stick to the regime, and Atkins is easy to stick to.

Re:It works.

[AJWM]

Whip up the sugar-free jello with some whipping cream. Tastes great, and the fat in the cream will satiate your appetite faster than the jello alone, so you'll eat less.

And I think (I'd have to check) that sugar-free jello these days is now a mix of aspartame and acesulfame potassium, rather than just the aspartame.

Re:It works.

[Malor]

I'd actually suggest eating more fat. If you eat fat, the body is more willing to burn fat; the absolute fastest fat-loss diet (according to Dr. Atkins, anyway) is about 1000 calories per day of fat, with nothing else. You shold not, nowever, do a diet that drastic without medical supervision.

Fat is NOT EVIL.... as long as you're on a low-carb diet. If you are getting lots of carbs, the body burns carbs first and stores fat... so the traditional wisdom of low-fat diets *in the presence of carbs* is true. But on a low-carb diet, the conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, conventional wisdom is just simply wrong in general about dieting; why else would we, as a country, spend SO MUCH money on low-fat goods, but get fatter every year?

If you're eating mostly protein, the body tends to burn protein. This means it will cannibalize your muscles, which is Not Good. The high-protein diets are what actually gave Atkins a bad rep, back in the 70s... some people were trying pure liquid-protein diets, so their bodies burned protein only -- and eventually they keeled over and died of heart attacks after their hearts had been too badly cannibalized to function anymore.

If, on the other hand, you're eating lots of fat, the body burns fat. This is what you WANT. You will probably lose fat (not necessarily weight) faster if you increase your fat intake. Muscle weighs more than fat, so your pounds-lost on the scale will slow, but your fat percentage should drop much faster. With a good, healthy, low-carb diet that's high in fat, you should lose almost 100% fat and leave your muscle essentially untouched. You may actually gain muscle mass if you are exercising steadily (as you should).

Atkins warns VERY SPECIFICALLY in his book not to avoid fat. In fact, Atkins is best described as a high-FAT diet, not a high-PROTEIN one.

Also, oils are very important; most Americans are badly, badly depleted of what are called "essential fatty acids", which are necessary to good health but which we cannot synthesize ourselves. You can get oil blends at most health food stores that are very good for you, and help you both nutritionally and calorically.

I have also personally had very good luck with MSM, which is a form of bio-available sulfur. In almost all of its forms, sulfur is very, very bad for the body, because it's so aggressive about combining with almost anything. Yet, a healthy body has something like 3% sulfur in it. Normally, apparently, we get sulfur (via MSM) through rainwater, but we don't drink rainwater anymore; instead, all our water is heavily processed, and we simply don't get as much as we need.

I have never before reacted to a supplement like I did to MSM when I first took it; my stomach felt incredibly GOOD (normally I only notice my stomach if something is *wrong* with it.), and I absolutely craved the stuff and ate it like candy for several weeks. I'm down to a capsule a day now and have no reaction to it or craving for it at all, so it's not like it's addictive... I was, I believe, just desperately short of it. I also note that my brain feels a lot more fluid and flexible as long as I keep taking it -- I've stopped a few times, and after a week or two I start to feel a little mentally sluggish. It's not expensive, so I just added it to the daily regimen.

If you're an over-30 techie who's been feeling kinda slow and stupid, I'd suggest trying it out for a couple weeks. Sure helps me.

Re:It works.

[hubenshtein]

I dropped 45lbs on it in about 3 months. Sugar-free Kool-aid r0>0r5!! Anyway, that was waith running about 4 miles 4 nights a week for soccer..

Re:It works.

[Cpt_Kirks]

I'm a laaaaazy fah-kah. I HATE the "E" word.

Twice around the block or twenty minutes on my reclined bike is just fine, thank you.

Excuse me, my pork steak is done on the Weber...

Re:It works.

[ForestGrump]

6 months, 40 pounds.
eat low, i do a half hour-hour of jogging/hiking each day.

Do 10-16 miles on saturday. rest sunday.
So far, I've done Half Dome at yosemite twice.

It works, and losing 40 pounds (aiming for another 20) feels good. then, there is that food craving...(jack in the box...ultimate cheeseburger for 1.99....)

Ignore the cravings for a week and they die down a bit.

-Grump

Re:It works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fatass, american shit.

Re:It works.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> If you are getting lots of carbs, the body burns carbs first and stores fat...

This is just not true.

A calorie from carbs equals a calorie from protein or a calorie from fat-- your body digests them differently, but the glucose levels in the blood are what determines fat storage. Once the calories are digested, your fat cells have no way to know where they came from.

>> Fat is NOT EVIL....

That I can agree with. The only reason fat is considered "bad" is because it packs a lot of calories in a small package, plus cholesterol if it's from an animal source.

I highly recommend the "UCSD Nutrition Book," by the late Paul Saltman. It is a good no-nonsense reference for how your body handles food.

Re:It works.

[Kashif Shaikh]

The problem with diets is...I would like to have meat, veggie, etc at lunch -- but to keep them varied is hard.

Re:It works.

[gfxguy]

But it's easy enough to just make sucralose sweetened gelatin - plain gelatin, a pack of unsweetened Koolaid, and Splenda - it works great and you have a much bigger variety of flavors to try. That's a staple desert at my house.

We are also seeing some GOOD Splenda sweetened ice cream (called "Slender"). Like anything though, it's the serving size that counts - one scoop, that's it, and not very often, either.

Re:It works.

[gfxguy]

This is one of the things I've argued with people. If you MUST have your sweets, the artificial sweeteners are much better than the artificial fats. Low carb chocolate, in many cases, is better than Hershey level chocolate. Show me one GOOD tasting low fat chocolate.

So when I've discussed it with co-workers, that low-carb is easier to stick to is one of my main points.

Re:It works.

[gfxguy]

Yes... my wife is from Brazil, where meat is a big part of the diet. She loves steak.

After six months on Atkins she admitted she was getting sick of it. Me too. It's also really expensive. So I scoured the internet for LC recipes, and while I've found a lot of good ones, we simply don't seem to have the time to make them.

It's hard, and we've gone off the wagon, but we're going back on. We're both still way down where we used to be, and we are both also working out, so I see a lot of potential.

Re:It works.

[jjhall]

Gfxguy, would you mind sending me an e-mail? I tried to find your address and was unable to find one. I would like to chat with you about some of the recipies you use.

Thanks!

Jeremy

Re:It works.

[Cpt_Kirks]

My ass is rather small.

You have my permission to eat my shit, motherfucker.

Re:It works.

[Malor]

I went back and looked, and I don't see that there's any evidence that fat is specially stored on a normal carb diet, so I may just have been flat wrong there; it may have been a projection on my part that was mistaken, my apologies.

However, I stand behind the remainder of my comments. Remember that they probably don't apply to everyone; people who are healthy and thin don't have the metabolic problems that we fatties do. People like me who have struggled with their weight have a metabolic problem, pretty much by definition; if the body isn't maintaining itself at a fairly normal weight, even with reasonable eating, something is amiss. What I am describing to you may or may not be true for everyone, but it IS often (almost always??) true for us heavy people.

Atkins believes the fundamental metabolic problem of most chronically heavy people is hyperinsulinism. The body secretes too much insulin in the presence of refined carbs, which causes a blood-sugar crash, and results in hunger much sooner than would be normal. The high insulin levels also result in fat being stored; the body's reaction to insulin is to convert sugars into fats to decrease the blood sugar level. So the fat cells suck the carbs into themselves, drop the blood sugar, and the end result is a hungry, fatter person, who then eats more carbs and starts the process again. Over time, the body releases more and more insulin; eventually, the body starts to becomes resistant to insulin, and that's how Type 2 diabetes often starts. Simple weight loss will often bring Type 2 diabetes under control, but the carb and blood sugar problem makes weight loss very difficult for people with this problem.

The Atkins diet switches the body into fat-burning mode. He likes to call it "lipolysis" (fat burning), because "ketosis", the real term, is sometimes confused with diabetic acidosis (I hope I have that term right) , which is VERY VERY bad for you; it's a life-threatening ailment that diabetics get. So he avoids the term "ketosis", even though it's technically more accurate. This is a VERY different metabolic pathway, and you will KNOW you have switched after doing it.

Also, a calorie is not always a calorie; in lipolysis, the body is less efficient about extracting calories, and you excrete a pretty good chunk (as high as 30%) of the calories you take in without metabolizing them. If I understood his book correctly, this is only true when you're truly in lipolysis; if you're burning carbs for energy, the body will convert fats and proteins with very high efficiency.

You can generally eat more on Atkins than you ordinarily would, but pleasantly, you are also much less hungry than normal, and in general you have more energy to boot. I've dropped 30lbs with practically no effort.

There are some drawbacks, however. The one I dislike most is that I smell strange while in ketosis, so I drink tons and tons of water, which helps a lot (means the byproducts of ketosis, ketones, go into the urine instead of sweat or the breath.) Meals are kinda boring, although if you are a good cook (I'm not), I don't think that would be a problem. Social meals can be a little awkward, but low-carbers are becoming common enough that there's often something on the menu nowadays. If all else fails, you can always suggest a steakhouse.

On the whole, despite drawbacks, it's great to see that little needle dropping instead of climbing, without hunger and without much effort. It takes some strong focus when you're starting, to switch habit patterns, but once you've settled in, it takes almost no work at all. I've dropped 30lbs so far myself, and I don't feel like I'm suffering to do it.

john walkers?

[samhalliday]

aaah, not Johnny Walkers, ok i thought yous had all lost your mind there! everyone knows this is what REAL hackers drink ;-)

Re:john walkers?

[csteinle]

You're at Uni in Edinburgh and you're promoting Whiskey over Whisky? What's wrong with you man? I'll let you off as you're probably Irish. :-)

(Although I'll admit no self respecting Scot would touch Johnnie Walker. Thats for export only. We prefer to keep the good stuff here if we can.)

Re:john walkers?

[gl4ss]

yeah you 'kers should let some of that stuff out to here!

you know, here we pay ~22euros+(per 0.7l) for the CHEAPEST SCOTCH, hankey bannister(which ain't bad imho for getting drunk), long john and the like(and we could catch a flight to london for maybe ~70e on a budget line).

kinda sucks(to like scotch, or any booze, and live in finland), not to mention that there's not usually anything exotic available(nor would i be able to afford it, however i'd like to taste some raw casks again). however, cheap scotch diet does work, the trick is to skip eating though(it goes better to head too). ymmv though when trying to combine this with hacking...

Re:john walkers?

[ameoba]

I've got 3 words for you:

Pabst Blue Ribbon.

Re:john walkers?

[linzeal]

I'm from kentucky but besides maker's mark I stick to the old Irish whisky esp the redbreast which I can get for 32 bucks around here, and I just want to say that I could never get over the peet in scotch or any other peeted whisky. I do like thi new mesquite mellowed whickey from texas though.

BTW moderators, a diet high in whiskey could be indicative of weight loss if you follow it up with writing binges, cigarettes, and black coffee. Maybe a danish every once in awhile for dunking.

Re:john walkers?

[samhalliday]

i believe you'll find its irish whiskEy go to "The Spelling of" ;-) and i didnt know they made "single malt bushmills"... last time i checked it was always triple. i would ask someone to check that up, if it wasnt for the fact that i have a bottle here it is is clearly triple... only dem mad scots drinks singles. (by the way, blackbush is a blend). what im getting it is... that webiste sells fantastic stuff, but they dont know shit from crap. (and i cant believe they export the 21-year to bloody foreigners... aah f**k it, i cant afford it anyway)

and before some smart-arse scot says it... "irish whiskey is always triple distilled becuase it takes them 3 times to get it right" (i'll let yous believe that... more bush for me :-P)

Re:john walkers?

[Anonymous Coward]

well i couldnt be in edinburgh and not be either irish or english now, could i? ;-) (nay bugger from scotland lives here anymore...)

Re:john walkers?

[linzeal]

Well I am not much for spelling I usually spell whiskey, whicky as that is how it sounds when pronounced from northern kentucky where my kin is. All bushmills 10yr+ are single malt by I do not think black bush is. Their website seems to indicate a no. If you can afford it though check out RedBreast, almost a caramel lingering aftertaste (for me) nice shit.

Can you imagine how crappy scotch would be if it had 3x the peet taste? Icky.

Re:john walkers?

[Theaetetus]

..a diet high in whiskey could be indicative of weight loss...

Best one I heard, at a Johnnie Walker's tasting, in fact, from the company spokesman:

"I was in Scotland at the plant for the first time, and they had us drinking lots of varieties of scotch all day. Speyside, Glenfiddich, everything. Nothing but scotch - it was a scotch diet. A good one, too. In a week's time, I lost three days."

-T

bad idea...

[user138]

Though it might be appetizing (hehe) to use this diet, do you guys know that Atkins died? and it was a result of his diet? Frankly, any diet that starves is not a good idea. If you are a fatass, then maybe computer time should not be first on your list of things to do. jgraham (not a fatass)

Re:bad idea...

[csimicah]

The diet made him slip and fall and hit his head? Interesting. Did the diet actually put the ice there, or did it come up behind him and shove him?

Re:bad idea...

[bobwoodard]

Just in case other people bite on the troll...

Dr Atkins died after slipping on some ice and hitting his head. Of course, I guess if he hadn't been on the diet, the fat might have cushioned his fall. 8-)

Re:bad idea...

[marko123]

It wasn't ice, it was rice. After rice lost it's job as a staple diet after being liberated by Atkins, it ungratefully bumped him off so as to regain it's place as a sovereign food.

Hacker's Diet review

[yppiz]

For those of you interested in dieting, do check out The Hacker's Diet. It's dieting explained in terms of engineering and project management. It's very clear and describes the essentials without resorting to euphemisms or nonsense.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Re:Hacker's Diet review

[JaredOfEuropa]

It's dieting explained in terms of engineering and project management.

You know what the problem of most diets is? That's right: having to take an engineering and/or project management approach to the diet. If I have to be busy with it all the time, watch myself for what I eat and how much, count calories, etc etc etc, I will give up.

The nice thing about Atkins is that the rules are fairly simple: limit your carbs. You can count them if you want them, but if you're lazy like me, you can just eat however much you happen to feel like of certain foods, and you'll not exceed your carb limit on most days.

Re:Hacker's Diet review

[stephanruby]

If anybody needs a convenient online tool for tracking your exercises and your calorie intake -- take a look at my journal. The only drawback is that they sell your info to Doubleclick, so you'll probably want to register with a throwaway email.

http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/PublicJournals.html?O wner=SteveSFbayarea

South Beach Instead

[Anonymous Coward]

My Dad's a cardiologist, and he's really concerned about the Atkins diet. There's good lab evidence that it doesn't lower the number of cholesterol molecules, it just shrinks them. This makes your cholesterol test show as having lower cholesterol, but isn't really healthier. The South Beach diet has a lot of similarities to the Atkins diet (low carbs, mainly), but is thought to be *much* better for you.

Re:South Beach Instead

[Mattwolf7]

Yeah, my mom is doing the South Beach diet and so far she has lost 21 pounds. She says she loves it because she can eat steak, hamburger (w/o the bun), salads, chicken, vegetables and all kinds of good food.

They always say it...

[AntiPasto]

...but exercise!!! Most of us eat right, etc, but are actually fairly imobile people. Get up! Get out! Walk around!!!!!! Not just for weight loss or building muscle, but just to be healthy.

Also, its good to eat a regular portion. If you stuffed yourself, you probably ate too much. Most restaurants will give you a dump-truck full so long as you hit their price point or $5~7 per person.

IANAD, but that's just my thoughts.

Re:They always say it...

[KDan]

I agree. Hacking sounds like a great idea when you're dealing with a finite system like a computer, a system which you actually stand some sort of chance of understanding. But the body is an incredibly complex machine that is way beyond the best "hackers" of this time.

The best scientists will admit that they can but barely scratch the surface of all there is to know about the human body, and you want to try to hack it? Sounds like a very stupid idea to me.

The only thing you can and should do is try to treat the body in as "healthy" a way as possible. That includes serious amounts of exercise (much more than the 'recommended' half hour per day or so). Remember, our bodies are designed to go running about all day hunting, not sit on our asses moving just our fingers. Add onto that as balanced a diet as possible, including plenty of fruit, veggies, some meat, and some fat, without eating too much nor too little, and you've hit jackpot. Nothing else works in the long term.

Daniel

Re:They always say it...

[csimicah]

The best scientists will admit that they can but barely scratch the surface of all there is to know about the human body, and you want to try to hack it?

Remember, our bodies are designed to go running about all day hunting, not sit on our asses moving just our fingers. Add onto that as balanced a diet as possible, including plenty of fruit, veggies, some meat, and some fat, without eating too much nor too little, and you've hit jackpot.

A "normal" modern diet _is_ a hack. Cavemen didn't have supermarkets.

Re:They always say it...

[KDan]

It's a hack based on the little bit of knowledge about the human body which we DO have. The Atkins diet is more like a script a skiddie downloaded. "Oh, when I press this button, I think this happens - so I'm going to do this without actually caring about the consequences".

Fact is, the true hacker respects the limitations of his knowledge, and doesn't do the equivalent of downloading a closed source script to run on his body without any idea how it works inside.

Daniel

Re:They always say it...

[csimicah]

It's a hack based on the little bit of knowledge about the human body which we DO have.

The modern American diet is not based on any knowledge. It's based on, I'm going to go to the supermarket and purchase one of every product that modern science and marketing has crammed onto the shelf, and call it "balanced" and "moderation".

Lots of people on Atkins are idiots, but don't assume everybody is. I know full well how it works inside. In fact, I bet I know more about how Atkins works on my body, than 95% of Americans know about how the bagels and pasta diet works on their body.

Re:They always say it...

[KDan]

Maybe I mis-expressed myself. I meant that the modern "balanced" diet is based on what little knowledge we have. The "american" diet, whatever it is (I don't live in the US), obviously is not :-P

Daniel

Re:They always say it...

[olman]

Excercise does zilch. Honest. You have to move insane amounts for it to do a difference weight control-wise. Excercise is good for you in many other ways but to lose weight.. Doesn't work.

Re:They always say it...

[Doc Hopper]

I'd have to disagree with the "Exercise does zilch" statement. I've followed the Hacker's Diet plan on and off for the last two years, and can confirm that an hour of aerobic exercise, six days a week (really tough to do for the first week or two, then it gets easier) causes me to burn an extra 200-400 calories per day overall versus an identical diet with no exercise. Just going for a half-hour walk every day doesn't give nearly the same results -- for me, an 100-200 calories a day or so -- but still adds up over time.

With aerobic exercise, that's about an extra pound every two weeks lost that wouldn't be lost otherwise. When I do the numbers, I come out ahead. Yeah, it's not "make or break" on any diet, and exercising won't help you eat "whatever you want" and still lose weight, but it's that little difference that makes a big difference over the course of several months.

Re:They always say it...

[King_TJ]

Bleah.... I call pure B.S. on this one!

Yes, you want to treat the body in a healthy manner. By that, I think it just means using good common sense. If you're a smoker, stop smoking. Don't drink excessive amounts of alcohol, or anything else. (Even too much water can kill a person.) Eat a variety of foods in moderation, and the law of averages will be on your side. (With enough food variety, you're bound to be ingesting some of each of the minerals and vitamins your body needs to function properly.)

Where I disagree is the "serious amounts of exercise". This will certainly help a person lose weight, but like a car that's constantly raced (instead of driven normally), parts just wear out faster and break more often.

In our distant past, we might have been out running around all day, hunting, but our lifespans were MUCH shorter than what they are today too.

Exercise, like everything else, is good - but in MODERATION. Too much of a good thing quickly becomes a bad thing. Just ask any ex pro-athlete, and they'll have plenty of stories and gripes about their bad joints, torn ligaments/tendons, and permanent injuries that are luckily paid for because they earned so much money while playing the sport. If you ask too much of your body, things will fail on you eventually.

Re:They always say it...

[GlassUser]

You do not exercise to burn calories. You exercise to keep your metabolism up. That burns the calories for you. The difference is that exercise only uses calories to power the work done - jogging at 5 mph burns maybe 1000 calories an hour (well for someone of my size). If I do that for half an hour, I get rid of 500 calories. Big deal. But my BMR (basal metabolic rate) is kept at a certain level (meaning it never goes below a certain amount of calories burned per time. Burn calories sleeping? Wow!

Re:They always say it...

[olman]

I know the idea about having muscles burn energy by being there. Have to wonder how much does your base energy use really go up for a few extra kilos of muscle tissue.

In any case, excercise has some other benefits like getting some of the computer chair time tension off your back. And you can run away faster when someone tries to rob you. Plus you don't get winded in stairs..

Re:They always say it...

[GlassUser]

Supposedly, a pound of muscle burns about ten calories an hour or so (just the energy required to keep it alive). See links:
http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticl e.php/ar ticle887.html
http://garylindahl-pt.com/articles/ dyk.htm

Re:They always say it...

[MKalus]

Where I disagree is the "serious amounts of exercise". This will certainly help a person lose weight, but like a car that's constantly raced (instead of driven normally), parts just wear out faster and break more often

You're not supposed to redline it. Base building is done at an "easy effort" means: You can still talk, this is 80% of my training.

In our distant past, we might have been out running around all day, hunting, but our lifespans were MUCH shorter than what they are today too.

Yet, there is no indication that large amounts of exercises (I talk here about Ironman distances, up to ten times) are having a negative effect on the body. And they have 30 years to research that, in fact they use Ironman Hawaii every year to probe all kinds of Athletes to see how they do physically.

Their findings so far: You're more likely to get a cold right after the race as your immune system is down, otherwise there don't seem to be any long term effect.

Just ask any ex pro-athlete, and they'll have plenty of stories and gripes about their bad joints, torn ligaments/tendons, and permanent injuries that are luckily paid for because they earned so much money while playing the sport.

Our understanding of exercise has greatly changed in the past 20 years, if you don't play any contact sports you are pretty low risk of injury (i.e. running), of course there are always freak accidents and such, but one has to take risks, no?

Come on People!

[Kanan]

Atkins is okay, but there are better systems out there. Just focusing on diet isn't going to make a person healthy. You need to exercise, and especially strength-train. I would devote about 2/3 of my workout to full-body strength training, and 1/3 to cardio if you are trying to lose weight, and only work out 5 tims a week for 45 minutes. More is not better because of muscle catabolism that starts to really kick in after 45 minutes for most people. You should take in high GI carbs right after a workout, and ingest 1.5g of protein per pound of lean body mass. If you utilize the GI index and just take in very-low GI carbs, such as garbonzo beans, you can still have a carb rich diet instead of using Atkins. Atkins is right about these sugary foodsI eat 4 cans of tuna with brown mustard, 2 cans of garbonzo beans, several protein shakes, a turkey sandwich, and lots of milk. I get about 240g of protein a day. I used to be a small guy at 5'10" and 135lbs, then after a couple years of college I was 180lbs without any extra muscle, now I am back at 185lbs, but with only 11% body fat. I still have work to do, I'd like to by 185lbs at 7% bodyfat. I thought I would share this information with all of you. I hope it helps somebody change their life for the better.

Re:Come on People!

[SiliconBateman]

Sensible advice. But even 5 times 45 minutes workout can be bad if you do the wrong workout. I recommend one you have trained a muscle group not to train it for the following 2 days.

For example: If you did pushing exercises (bench press, push up, dips) on Monday, don't do that same exercise for Tues or Wed. Same goes that if you train pulling (pullup, rows, barbell curl) on Wed don't do it on Thurs or Fri and if you did your legs (squat, deadlift, lunges) on Friday don't do it again over the weekend.

This is because the muscle needs a couple days to regenerate and regrow (and not become damaged).

Re:Come on People!

[Kanan]

I agree, I just did not want to inundate people with so much information all at once.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/index.html is a good resource, for those that want to learn more, although it has a lot of crappy information too. One just has to sort through the crap to find the gold.

Re:Come on People!

[MisanthropicProggram]

I think just exercising is what we should do - period. I've never seen any compelling evidence that mostly strength training is any better than lets say, mostly cardio.
For me, anyway, very intense cardio (Masters swimming, running) with a little strength training works best. Also, I'm small (5' 8") with genes that make me put on 5 lbs. of muscle when I just sneeze! When I lifted a lot, I started to get really stocky. I started to look like a tree trunk with legs. :-)

The best exercise advice I've ever seen is from The Solution (http://www.sweetestfruit.org/) : just keep active and make it fun!

Re:Come on People!

[SiliconBateman]

Sorry, agreed too much info can overpower in technicalities ;)

To quote from Arnie no less (!!), listen to your body and if you feel pain, are overly tired or you feel you are not making progress you are probably not doing what is best; so investigate, find the cause and correct it.

Re:Come on People!

[gfxguy]

Exercise is an essential part of Atkins and most other LC diets. This is one of the misunderstood parts of the diet.

Your body fat level is pretty low. Maybe if you were in some sort of competitions, a professional athlete.

modified atkins

[elrod]

i used to work out 60 minutes a day on cardio machines -- bikes, stairclimbers, treadmills, elliptical machines -- and i lost no weight whatsoever.

i've been on a modified atkins diet for 8 months now, and with a decent amount of walking as exercise, i've lost over 25 lbs. i'm not sure why it works, and i'll admit that i was skeptical at first, but now i'm a sworn follower of the low-carb diet.

now if someone will just make a *good tasting* low carb beer.

Re:modified atkins

[Kupek]

You should have added weight lifting of some sort. Increading your muscle mass increases the number of calories you burn when you're not active.

I've been using a modified version of Atkins

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gotten a lot of info from here

Low grain-based carbs, low saturated fat and trans-fatty acids, low refined sugar, more monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat, and more omega 3. I've lost 50 lbs in 15 weeks and I feel much more energetic. I've got about 25 lbs to go before I hit the BMI upper threshold for normal weight. The best part is that I'll have to go shopping soon for normal sized clothes.

I haven't started an exercise program and I probably wont (although I should but I am lazy as hell).

Seriously, Atkins (and it's derivatives) are the easiest diets I've ever seen. Younger and younger people are getting heart disease, diabetes, and other obesity-caused ailments. You should at least try it.

Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was great at first because I lost about 10 pounds in a short 2 weeks. But the diet changed my eating habits so much that I wasn't able to keep it off when I reached my goal. I gained it all back, _plus_ an extra 10 pounds. I wouldn't recommend it. Stick with the tried-and-true ELF diet (Eat Less Food) combined with a 15-30 minutes of excercise every few days and the weight will come off eventually. It will take longer, but it will actually stay off.

Re:Not a good idea

[Dunarie]

I thought it was great at first because I lost about 10 pounds in a short 2 weeks. But the diet changed my eating habits so much that I wasn't able to keep it off when I reached my goal. I gained it all back, _plus_ an extra 10 pounds. I wouldn't recommend it. Stick with the tried-and-true ELF diet (Eat Less Food) combined with a 15-30 minutes of excercise every few days and the weight will come off eventually. It will take longer, but it will actually stay off.

This will happen with ANY diet. Diets arn't just ment to be used untill you reach your goal, then quit, it's a life long thing. Especially with the Atkins diet, you don't just go back to your old diet, you stick with your current one. Now, you can eat more carbs (sugar) since you only need to maintain, not lose.

Both my dad and me are on the diet, and we've lost about 60 pounds each so far, and still loosing. My dad is a diebetic, I might add, and has had to STOP taking some of his meds, cause his blood sugar level was starting to get too LOW!.

Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[Ieshan]

This has to be the most ridiculous comparison for a diet I've ever heard. Instead of overclocking - pushing the body to do more (maybe working out?) - the Atkins diet makes the body digest itself because of carbohydrate depravation.

Want to know what the Atkins diet is like, in Nerd terms? It's like discarding all but 2 megs of ram and cannibalising your disk as virtual memory / swap space. "Hey, I'll save money by not buying a gym membership by just starving my body!"

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[Mononoke]

"Hey, I'll save money by not buying a gym membership by just starving my body!"

Funny, except you aren't starving your body on the Atkins diet.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[csimicah]

the Atkins diet makes the body digest itself because of carbohydrate depravation.

If by "digesting itself" you mean "digesting its fat stores", then yes, you're correct. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's what fat is for.

There's a reason our bodies have a such mode as lipolysis; it was meant to be used once in a while.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[nossid]

You mean like running out of diskspace, removing emacs and continue coding using ed.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[browbeat]

In order of ease of use your body can use, sugar (carbs), fat, and protein for fuel. If cut out the easiest to digest (carbs) then your body will run on fat and protein. On the Adkins diet you generally eat less fuel than your body needs because fat and protein take longer to digest and are not fully digested, you feel full longer. Because of this your body will consume it's own stores of fuel. So long as you have body fat you have no need to fear your body digesting it's muscles.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually protein is the easiest to digest. Your body will actually burn up your muscles before it will go into its fat stores. Thats why you need to exercise if you diet, otherwise you're going to make yourself very weak before you lose the fat.

After protein is the carbohydrates, like sugars and breads, then its fat. Fat gives you the most energy when you break it down, but its much harder to break down.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[jd_esguerra]

the Atkins diet makes the body digest itself because of carbohydrate depravation

Isn't that kind of the point? I'm skeptical of all diets, mostly because I don't think there is a single diet that is optimal for every single person. From what I've observed, Atkins seems to pretty effective for some people. Healthy or not, it has enabled some to drop a big enough chunk of weight that they are now more comfortable going to the gym, and more likely to be protective of their health/appearance. Being in shape is its own reward, and is good motivation for healthy living.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[Geno Z Heinlein]

There's a reason our bodies have a such mode as lipolysis; it was meant to be used once in a while.

I'll go a little farther and say that it's meant to be used most of the time. Our evolutionary background was in low-carbohydrate environments, which is why the Atkins diet is sometimes called "the Caveman diet". Contrary to nutritional folk wisdom, it's the current high-carbohydrate agricultural environment that's unnatural.

Atkins discovered his diet when he started ingnoring nutrionists. He started as a cardiologist, and despite the high-carb and low-fat diets traditional nutritionists recommend, his patients continued to get fat and die of heart attacks. When he looked into existing studies, he found that carbohydrate deprivation has minimal effect on the human body, and that it caused rapid weight loss by shifting metabolic modes and burning fat.

I've been on Atkins, and I lost over 25 kilos of fat in about six months while eating 3500 calories a day, including downing entire pints of sour cream with a spoon. My exercise program was non-existent unless you count clicking the remote. :-) My rate of weight loss and other physical indicators were all dead on to predictions made by Atkins in his book. I've tried lots of the popular diets, and none of them delivered on their promises except Atkins.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[bill_mcgonigle]

There's a reason our bodies have a such mode as lipolysis; it was meant to be used once in a while.

It's been a while since my highschool biochemistry class, but I'm pretty sure that's not the only process stimulated by carbohydrate starvation. It's true, lipolysis provides needed energy, but on the Atkins diet you have a carbohydrate deficit, specifically a glucose deficit, so your body undergoes gluconeogenesis. The brain, testes, erythrocytes and kidney medulla run exclusively on glucose, so the body has to do something when there's no glucose input.

Gluconeogenesis takes pyruvates and oxaloacetates and converts them into glucose. You get these through catabolism of amino acids, chiefly from muscle tissue. The muscle is broken down and transported to the liver for gluconeogenic processing. Alanine, cysteine, glycine, serine, & threonine can be deaminated directly or indirectly to form pryuvate and asparagine and aspartate can be made into oxaloacetates.

But what of the other amino acids? Aye, there's the rub - they're not glucogenic they're ketogenic. During a glucose deficit, muscle tissue is not selected by amino acid type, it's done indiscriminately. So you wind up with all these extra ketones floating around that the kidney needs to deal with. In some people, this is expecially rough, perhaps even to the point of scarring.

There's no getting around it - Atkins breaks down muscle as well as fat and is tough on the kidneys. Possibly balancing this is that some people on Atkins get motivated and start exercising, probably replacing that muscle mass though exercise, but there are others who don't exercise and are actually drawn to Atkins for that feature; these are the people at greatest risk. This risk, of course, needs to be weighed against the risks of their obesity, but it's not sound to call Atkins a risk-free diet.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[Anonymous Coward]

In some people, this is expecially rough

You know, you SOUND like you know what you're talking about, but I just can't bring myself to trust anyone who spells 'especially' with an x.
It just screams uneducated.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[evilpenguin]

Now here's someone to mod up!

I think this is exactly the right answer. No one "diet" fits all. It is universally agreed that increasing exercise (at least from the typical American computer programmer level -- totally inert) is good for you. Now, if you are obese, you need to change the way you eat.

When I was quite young, I balooned up to just shy of 300 pounds. I went on Weight Watchers and dropped wieght like a stone. I got down to 190 pounds. Over the next 15 years, I gained wieght steadily (inert programmer lifestyle) up to about 270 pounds. Less than my max, but I got back to where just standing up for an extended period would make me perspire.

That is just not right.

Back on Weight Watchers I went. But I didn't lose wieght. I stopped gaining, but I didn't lose. Any fluctuation I saw in the scale was not only within normal variance for water weight, but frankly within the accuracy of the scale.

Atkins worked for me. I'm down to 210 and losing weight slowly.

I feel good and I look good (well, better than my former walrus-self).

The point is that to lose wieght, you must go into ketosis. Diets vary on how often and for how long. The insight that I think Atkins has that the rest of the world hasn't quite caught on to is the effect of wildly oscillating blood sugar levels on the pacreas and on the habituation of cells to insulin. I think his insight that it is better to eat lower on the glycemic index than higher, and better yet to let the body find its glucose through the longer slower lypolitic reactions is his main acheivement.

I scold him, though, for not being a scientist. He made an industry out of it, and more power to him, there's no reason not to profit from a good idea, but he didn't do the science. His work amounts to a collection of anecdotes.

His book cites a vast amount of scattered research that tends to support his thesis, but he had an opportunity to use his patients as a source of research data, and he never bothered. Heck, he could have had med students do the hard work.

Fortunately, studies on this approach are underway. The data will be there. But it will be ten to fifteen years yet before the data are in on possible negative effects (cancer rates, kidney disease rates, etc.). There's data on how it is good for heart disease, diabetes, artery disease. But there are long-term questions about cancer, kidney disease, and stroke that are simply not known.

That annoys me.

However, the risk of premature death from heart disease is so much greater than all other health risks (apart from toboacco -- the number one killer), that it seems reasonable to trade a small increase in colon cancer risk for a huge risk of heart attack.

Still, I think the person who "discovers" something like this should feel obligated to do the science.

Of course, I'm no MD. I get the impression this is a common dividing line: Research doctor versus practicing doctor -- similar to the line between law professor and practicing lawyer. It seems academic medicine and practice medicine are often separated.

Still, it is sad that Dr. Atkins' data aren't useful for population studies.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[lushmore]

Gluconeogenesis takes pyruvates and oxaloacetates and converts them into glucose. You get these through catabolism of amino acids, chiefly from muscle tissue. The muscle is broken down and transported to the liver for gluconeogenic processing. Alanine, cysteine, glycine, serine, & threonine can be deaminated directly or indirectly to form pryuvate and asparagine and aspartate can be made into oxaloacetates.

Hey, that's great that you remember your high school chemistry, but the clinical data don't support your theory. Atkins focuses on foods hight in fat & protein, so there's always enough protein intake that the body does not need to break down muscle tissue. This has been gospel among body builders for 30+ years. Low-carb diets preserve muscle mass moreso than low-fat diets, and the fat loss compared to low-fat is probably more significant than current studies already indicate.

I've been fat all my life, peaking at 277 lbs eight years ago. I just finished my first year on Atkins. I'm down from 244 to 187 (that in the first sixth months actually), the same weight I was a as a high school freshman (15 years ago). Now that I've broken my carb addiction I've added healthy carbs (whole grains, vegetables, fruit) back into my diet. It's been a year now and I haven't had a donut, french fry, or any sort of sugar or junk food. My triglycerides are under 80. Is your diet that healthy?

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[drinkypoo]

When your body can't get glucose, it can run on ketones. Which, conveniently enough, are running around your body when you go on atkins, which is why it's called Ketosis. During Ketosis, the rate of lean muscle mass is slowed, so you actually lose less muscle than when you go on other diets. Did you know that during a typical period of dieting, you lose one part muscle for every three parts of fat you lose? This tendency is slowed during Ketosis.

Now as you say, the Ketones running around your body can be dangerous. It can lead to kidney stones, for example. This is why the diet explicitly tells you that you need to be drinking twelve to sixteen glasses of water a day, to keep flushing your system. You'll note that the FDA says you should drink twelve of them, and most people don't even do that. Not drinking enough water is the cause of the vast majority of atkins-related complications.

Actually, the indication is that the brain at least runs far more efficiently on ketones than it does on glucose. Don't worry, your body is designed for this.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[barakn]

the diet explicitly tells you that you need to be drinking twelve to sixteen glasses of water a day, to keep flushing your system. You'll note that the FDA says you should drink twelve of them, and most people don't even do that.

To quote from Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution (p. 230) "You must drink at least eight 8-ounce glasses of pure water daily." He never mentions kidney stones as a problem. You were probably thinking of gallstones, which aren't caused by the Atkins diet. The diet can cause the gallbladder to contract, which will cause previously unnoticed gallstones to become painful. In fact, low-fat diets are blamed for inactive gallbladders and thus for forming the gallstones in the first place.

The FDA certainly did not recommend 12 glasses of water a day. This is another urban myth that just won't die. Anecdotes are not as useful as they seem, but I'll relate one anyway. A friend of mine who exercised heavily, ate an extremely low-fat diet, and drank up to a gallon of water a day had to have surgery on his gallbladder at the age of 25.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[drinkypoo]

I know a guy who gave himself a seizure because he drank too much water. When I used to walk behind the steam train at Roaring Camp Big Trees and something or other in Felton CA I used to take salt tablets on days where the temp was over 90 or so... Walking uphill after trains all day can get to you. (I rode back down) :)

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the best diet is a balanced one with sharply limited "bad carbs" (those with a high glycemic index/load). At least you've re-introduced good carbs since Adkins--some people are stuck on the false carbs-are-bad mantra. It's reasonably likely that you would have lost the same weight on just cutting bad carbs alone. My parents lost 10 and 15 pounds in the first month. Apparently, this is what the much hyped "south beath diet" is all about, though it's really nothing new in the medical field or even common sense.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[lushmore]

It's reasonably likely that you would have lost the same weight on just cutting bad carbs alone.

That's a nice thought, but it's not true. The first two stages of the four-stage Atkins diet are "corrective." They are meant to make you lose weight, and that simply means you're not getting enough to maintain the status quo. Having reintroduced carbs, I'm now on a steady state diet that is healthful and does not result in my gaining or losing weight.

When I started on Atkins, people repeatedly asked, "how will you keep the weight off?" I always said, "For once in my life, I would like to have that problem."

Cutting out bad carbs alone is a sensible plan from a theoretical point of view, but it's a hard diet to stay on. The severeness of induction phase of Atkins contributes to its documented success rate. I (and many friends I know) find Atkins is easier to stay on as time passes. Low-fat and many other diets are more difficult the longer you're on them.

Re:Hacking And Overclocking - What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, that's great that you remember your high school chemistry, but the clinical data don't support your theory. Atkins focuses on foods hight in fat & protein, so there's always enough protein intake that the body does not need to break down muscle tissue.

That may be true if you had a low level steady intake of protein through the whole day... but you don't. The fact is once your body enters starvation (as in it no longer has the glucose available that it needs), it will take approximately 1/2 the necessary energy from fat stores, and the other 1/2 from muscle stores. Sure, some of that protein may come from what is ingested, but that only holds true while that protein remains unincorporated and still in the system... which isn't that long. There is no doubt about it, on a low carb diet your body will compensate by scaveging the muscles.

Re:Typical Geeks

[csimicah]

Clogged arteries? Might want to crack a book... Atkins has been found to _improve_ cholesterol ratios.

The vitamin deficiencies, I have no answer to. We'll just have to hope that some day modern medicine will find a way to package multiple vitamins into some type of pill form.

Cowboyneal

[Pingular]

If you're reading this...

Its a Feature!

[TubeSteak]

The eternal excuse:

"It might be that we're designed actually to operate that way, instead of eating a whole bunch of processed carbs. [With a low-carb diet] it actually may be that we're gearing our diets to how we should be eating. It might be a feature, not a bug. "

atkins rules

[dfn5]

I've been on atkins for a month now and it rules. Any diet that lets me have eggs and sausage for breakfast, every day, is the diet for me. And I've lost 10 pounds so far. Halloween was kind of a bitch, but I made it through it. I had my wife dispose of the extra candy at her place of work. Let them get fat. :-)

Dieting

[nuggz]

Most people have terrible diets.

Fancy systems may or may not work, they may or may nto have nasty side effects.

The one that I think works best is simple.

Eat less and healthier, get some excercise, and drink water.

Few points, it is cheaper then most systems.
It is probaly cheaper then your current unhealthy diet. Drinking enough water, or excercising alone are going to improve your health.

Re:Dieting

[jsgates]

Yes, they do improve your health, but not nessisarly help you lose weight. I walk/jog ~5 miles a day, 5 days a week, and lift weights 3-4 days a week for 45-60 min. Even with this, and eating a diet consisting mainly of what are considered healthy foods (fruit, veggies, chicken, whole wheat pasta/bread, etc) I was unable to lose much weight. When I tried the Atkins diet however, the weight flew off, and I kept my muscle.

Just wish I hadn't gone off of it, time to start up again :)

Re:Dieting

[JaredOfEuropa]

Eat less

A common misconception: eating less will not necessarily help lose weight, nor is it necessarily healthier. Eating less will make you feel hungry and/or lower your blood sugar levels, which will increase your craving for sugary snacks. The result is that you'll snack more... which will still feel like you're eating less, but you are eating things that are worse for you. That, or you'll stay off the snacks and feel miserable all the time. Personally, I don't eat a lot but I still gain weight. If I eat less, I feel like crap.

If by eating less you mean don't stuff yourself, sure... but eating less in itself will not help you lose weight, it'll just feel like you may think you are supposed to feel when losing weight. A nice thing about Atkins is that you do not have to feel hungry at all.

I can't see Hackers on Atkins.....

[confused philosopher]

Because can you picture a code monkey without their beer?

And never mind the Pringles, and other high carb foods for those late nights creating stuff.

Re:I can't see Hackers on Atkins.....

[Cpt_Kirks]

Michelob Ultra. Haven't you noticed. There's low carb EVERYTHING now. Though the pasta sucks ass.

If you want the ultimate in body hacking...

[Anonymous Coward]

..check out Dan Duchaine's Body Opus. Lots of crazy stuff in there.

About dieting...

[Fishbu]

This has probably been said already but the most effective way to lose weight is good ol' fashioned healthy eating and regular exercise.

Diets are just a way to quickly lose weight then to (just as quickly) gain it again. For the most part they're not effective in keeping pounds off permanently. A general way to think about this is that what you get out is proportional to what you put in. There are no free lunches.

Re:About dieting...

[browbeat]

I lost 70 pounds on Atkins and have kept it off for 4 years and I get to eat what I like. I juas control the carbs.

Re:About dieting...

[AJWM]

This has probably been said already but the most effective way to lose weight is good ol' fashioned healthy eating and regular exercise.

And like many oft-repeated platitudes, it contains a lot of falsehood around a little bit of truth.

First of "healthy eating" is meaningless without context. For many, the Atkins is healthy eating. Metabolism differs, what is healthy for some may not be for others. Sure, there are some things that are clearly unhealthy: excessive refined sugars, vitamin deficient diets, diets lacking in certain essential amino acids. Certain vegetarian diets can be very unhealthy. A good guideline here is "what did humans eat during the course of their evolution?" -- diets rather low on agricultural crops (grains and cereals - high carbo) and high on meats, fish, fruits (which is why we've lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C) and some vegetables.

Diets are just a way to quickly lose weight then to (just as quickly) gain it again. For the most part they're not effective in keeping pounds off permanently.

True of short term dieting, not true of permanent changes to dietary habits -- the latter is what Atkins recommends, after a short term "induction phase" to shift the metabolism. Of course, like many other diets, some people are happy with the weight lost during the induction phase then lapse back to old eating habits instead of staying in the "maintenance phase".

Alternatively (what some doctors suggest) is to do the Atkins short term to lose enough weight that regular exercise becomes an option. (If you're too overweight, anything beyond a bit of walking puts too much stress on knees, circulatory system, etc. and you physically cannot exercise enough to make much difference at first -- leading to discouragement and quitting the program. The Atkins gives positive feedback quickly.)

A general way to think about this is that what you get out is proportional to what you put in.

Proportional, yes, but that proportion varies according to the various metabolic pathways taken. Different people have different metabolisms. Conventional (and wrong through oversimplification) dietary wisdom is that caloric intake must equal caloric expenditure through exercise to maintain weight. This ignores a couple of factors: one, that food takes energy to digest, ie some calories are expended just converting food calories to a form expendable as exercise calories; and two, that the measurement technique for food calories is vastly oversimplified and doesn't take digestion effort into account. (Basically, they burn the food in a calorimetry bomb and measure the heat given off. This is not how the body utilizes food energy, obviously! Some foods -- celery, for example -- actually take more energy to eat and digest than they yield calorically.)

It also ignores the fact that exercise isn't the only way to use calories -- it's just the easiest to measure. In fact, the brain uses a lot of calories just thinking, and thinking hard (problem solving, etc) takes more than passive observation. (Although it appears that in high IQ people the brain is somewhat more efficient at using energy to solve a given problem.) That's probably the reason why many hackers aren't fatter than they are, given the food intake and exercise levels.

There are no free lunches.

And if there were, they'd probably be fattening.

Programmer's Diet Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

John Cash, who used to be with iD Software, once published this diet plan in his .plan back while they were developing Quake II.

Plan:
Busy, busy, busy workin' on Quake2. I wish I could tell you about it, but I can't.

For now, I'll introduce "the Cash diet" to the world. I'd never really formalized my secret diet before, but the guys and girls (w00p) in my clan dragged it out of me one night. So here it is. [drumroll]

The Cash Diet Plan
==================
What to eat:
Red meat
Lots of it. Cooked rare or medium rare.
Burgers, steaks, meatballs.. whatever.
No steak sauce, but gravy or juice is good.
Fried stuff:
Mainly potato chips and french fries.
Not those lame baked ones; real ones with
salt and oil and fat (and flavor) and maybe
bbq, vinegar, or something hot/spicy.
Dessert
Good stuff, not that low fat/low calorie crap.
Whipped cream is a definite plus. Important
note: you are not restricted to only one.
Feel free to start out with a dessert as a
pre-appetizer appetizer.
Appetizers
Loaded nachos, Buffalo wings, Onion rings.

What to drink:
Non-diet soft drinks (preferably with high
levels of caffeine)
Real beer

Snacks:
Yes, of course. Anytime you want. I find
a snack to be good right before or right
after exercising. Contrary to what you might
be thinking, fruit is actually OK as a snack...
as long as you "wash it down" with a candy bar.

Exercise:
Hey, what kind of diet doesn't include exercise?
This is the key to my diet. There is only one
exercise that is aerobic, burns lots of calories,
and you'll actually enjoy doing. As an added
bonus it can be singles, couples, or even teams.
I'm talking, of course, about good old fashioned
sex. The more the better (but take it easy when
working out alone!) BTW, here's where that
whipped cream on the desserts can come in handy.

There you have it. I think it'll catch on.. I mean,
what is there not to like?

So, I hear you thinking: sounds great, but does it really work? Well, it does for me. I'm 5'10" and
weigh 125 pounds. I eat what I want, when I want, and "work out" as often as possible (w00p!!!)

Warning: There is one possible side effect of this diet... ummm... I have two of 'em... both boys So practice safe dieting.

Re:Programmer's Diet Plan

[Dilly Bar]

I'm sorry but 5'10" and 125 pounds??? That is skinnier than a professional marathon runner (Well, maybe not quite, but is still really skinny). I am 5'7", 160lbs and I am skinny with some muscle and a little fat. I can't see how weighing that little is healthy...

Re:Programmer's Diet Plan

[The Bod]

I'm guessing the previous poster who is 5'10" and 125 pounds is female. I'm a 5'10" male, and there is absolutely no way I can get my weight much below 180 without also losing some muscle.

Re:Programmer's Diet Plan

[sn4ip3r]

I am 185cm (6') and 56kg (123.5lb), male and 17 years old. And I know for a fact that I don't have a healthy lifestyle. I don't each much and I eat only a very small subset of things that normal people eat (no pizza, hamburger, almost anything made of meat except chicken)

Re:Programmer's Diet Plan

[loucura!]

I'm male, 5'11", and 125 pounds. I've never been above 132 pounds, and I can't gain weight, so I don't try. I'm strong relative to my weight too... it disturbs people I know.

Re:Programmer's Diet Plan

[raodin]

Women actually should be heavier than men at the same height, they're generall not because of societal pressures. I'm a guy and 6'2" and 145-ish.. Heaviest I've been is 150lbs, when I was working out (mostly running and weight lifting) 4 days a week. Some people are just lightweights... All the guys in my family are.

Re:Programmer's Diet Plan

[nelziq]

Ah. Senior year of college I was 5' 7' and weighed 115 (tops!) and i could bench my weight and was on the Ultimate frisbee team. Cant gain weight for the life of me but I managed to lose alot of strength and stamina. =/ Ah well. The point being is that its perfectly possible to be healthy and skinny if you have a weird body type such as mine.

Re:Programmer's Diet Plan

[Wraithlyn]

I want to formally complain about the poor choice of this post's title.

Any diet that has sex as a primary ingredient should definitely NOT be christened the "Programmer's Diet Plan". It's just too misleading for most of us. ;)

Re:Programmer's Diet Plan

[red5]

Yeah me too. 6' even and 145lbs and I'm a tradesman for gods sake.

Junk Science

[molafson]

Atkins diet is basically just a low calorie diet in disguise (as you eliminate carbs, you eliminate a major source of calories).

Also, as in ANY diet, under Atkins you are forced to pay close attention to your food consumption. This is a good, healthy thing in itself (to be aware of your food consumption). That awareness alone, regardless of the Atkins method specifically, may promote weight loss.

BTW, I suspect all Atkins' insulin, ketosis, etc. theory is all junk science.

Re:Junk Science

[csimicah]

Major peer reviewed studies in respected medical journals have totally disproven every single thing you just said.

On a more specific note, if ketosis is junk science, why do ketones show up in my piss when I don't eat carbs?

Re:Junk Science

[drinkypoo]

Atkins is not low calorie. You and just about half of the rest of the world (and the person who modded you up) are under this impression, and I don't know where you all got it. Probably from the processed food industry.

See, the people who make processed foods love sugar because it doesn't just make food tastier (I have a preference for rich over sweet actually, but this is a digression) but it also works as a preservative. It gives food more structure, and it has a longer shelf life. So any excuse to dump some sugar into their food, they're all over that.

Ketosis ain't Atkins' theory, it was around before he was. He just dug it back up and wrote some books that told people what they wanted to hear. The catch? He wasn't lying. This is what sets him apart :P

I did the math and I was eating around 3000 calories a day while I was sticking to atkins the hardest. We're talking big fat steaks cut off a roast because it's cheap, with fat on the edge of them, fried in butter in an iron skillet. I usually put a little more butter on top of them to give them more flavor, in fact.

When I had salad, it had about a half a cup of bleu cheese dressing on it. And it was next to a steak, not in place of it.

Even under $2/lb, if you're not making much money (I Wasn't making any at the time, but family will let you get away with that shit for a while if you're reeling from something) you can't eat steak all the time. Enter fried chicken. I did fry in Canola oil, which is pretty harmless, but there's still plenty of fat there, it's just the less harmful stuff. All of which hardly matters, because you don't store fat as fat when you're in ketosis (just carbs).

I lost 90 lb in 9mo eating the above-described diet. I never once deviated in that time, I never ate more than 50g carbs in a day. I went from 380 pounds to 290 pounds just sitting on my ass, thanks to mediacom@home cable modem internet. (I was getting 6 megs down for a while.) Since then I've been working out a couple days a week, and eating more carbs, and I'm hovering around 270 lb. And now, you can see my bicep muscles a whole lot better. Well, the shape of them anyway. But exercise is simply not necessary for weight loss on the atkins diet. It's just a good idea.

It's worth mentioning that during that period I also drank a lot of water. For a piece of it, it was summer in Lake County, California, so I really had no choice.

Re:Junk Science

[Anonymous Coward]

I did the math and I was eating around 3000 calories a day while I was sticking to atkins the hardest... I went from 380 pounds to 290 pounds

Er, how many calories per day were you consuming before you went on the diet? I.e. Atkins diet may have been relatively low calorie compared to your habits beforehand.

Re:Junk Science

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Major peer reviewed studies in respected medical journals have totally disproven every single thing you just said.

References, please!
Back it up, back it up, back it up!

Re:Junk Science

[drinkypoo]

I was out of money, so I was eating normal things. IE, a smaller steak, with a chunk of bread. A bowl of cereal with minimal sugar in the morning. A sandwich at lunch.

Why don't you believe in Ketosis? It's a well-documented state of man. I do NOT have a fast metabolism (slow if anything) and eating 3,000 calories a day without exercising is GOING to make you fat - unless they're calories from fat, and you're in ketosis, or you have a very fast metabolism.

An apple a day..... makes you fat?

[acordes]

Props to all those who have tried Atkins and lost weight. However, I can't understand how a diet that tells you not to eat pears, apples, etc. can be healthy for you. It will be interesting to see 10 years down the road what the long term effects of Atkins are.

Re:An apple a day..... makes you fat?

[bobwoodard]

I'd encourage you to check out the specifics of the diet. There are different stages to the Atkins diet and the different stages allow different things in the diet. Fruits are fine, at the right time.

Re:An apple a day..... makes you fat?

[Psx29]

Well the diet itself has been around for about 30 years, and I haven't heard of any negative long term effects (I don't know much about diets though--google is your friend ;)

Re:An apple a day..... makes you fat?

[/dev/trash]

if you read the book, you'd see that the elimination of carbs is a short term ( 4-5 weeks) thing.

Take the time to do the research

[Critter92]

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ lcd.html

The "hacking your metabolism" argument is not well defended by the research. However, the constraints of not eating carbos does tend to reduce your caloric intake, leading to weight loss.

You'll know the hacker's diet has gone mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

...when you can order low-carb Mountain Dew.

Try the Drinking Man's Diet

[christopherfinke]

Oh, I'm on the Drinking Man's Diet,
It came from a book I was loaned.
It's really terrific and quite scientific
And I'm half stoned.

For breakfast some cornflakes and vodka,
But cornflakes have carbohydrate;
So I don't eat those fattening cornflakes,
I eat the vodka straight.

Drink, drink, everyone drink;
It's not as bad as we used to think.
With every Manhattan your stomach will flatten,
So drink, drink, drink.

The Air Force invented this diet,
A fact which they hotly deny.
Of course they deny it, 'cause this is the diet
That got the Air Force high.

For lunch you can have three martinis,
What better lunch is there than that?
But caution: do not eat the olives,
'Cause olives make you fat.

Drink, drink, everyone drink;
It's not as bad as we used to think.
If pounds you would burn off, then turn on your Smirnoff,
And drink, drink, drink.

For dinner, a nice Scotch and soda
Now that oughtta help you to lose.
No whipped cream, no butter, just lay in the gutter
And booze, booze, booze.

Suppose you should meet a policeman,
Who says you've been quenching your thirst;
You just tell him it's physical fitness
And health comes first!

Drink (hic!), drink (hic!), booze everywhere (hic!);
Pass that decanter of bourbon there.
I'm fatter than ever, but here's what's so clever:
I don't care!

-- Allan Sherman

Gross

[Pave Low]

I've seen the people on Atkins, and just watching them eat makes me puke. I love bacon, steak, and fatty stuff as much as the next guy, but who likes downing all that stuff everyday without carbs, and other stuff.

It's usually morbidly obese people who are doing this, and while I don't doubt it works, those people are still far from healthy. They still carry a few extra pounds, don't exercise, and they reek.

It's funny how humans have lived on a staple of grains, rice, potatoes for thousands of years, and billions around the world continue to do so, and now it's no good for you? No thanks, I'll continue to eat whatever I want in moderation, and exercise frequently. It's a lot easier and healthier than these fad diets.

Re:Gross

[bobwoodard]

I've seen the people on Atkins, and just watching them eat makes me puke. I love bacon, steak, and fatty stuff as much as the next guy, but who likes downing all that stuff everyday without carbs, and other stuff.

It doesn't sound like you were watching someone on the official Atkins diet. Lots of people focus on the stuff they like to eat (bacon, steak, eggs, etc), but the Atkins plan is much more than that.

Re:Gross

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how humans have lived on a staple of grains, rice, potatoes for thousands of years, and billions around the world continue to do so, and now it's no good for you?

For tens of thousands of years, humans lived on a staple of hunted animals, and now it's no good for you? Look at the impact the "European" diet has had on Native Americans. Obesity and diabetes rates are through the roof. Even among those of European heritage, the rates are now changing. Billions around the world don't have the same sorts of excess that Americans/Europeans now do.

Re:Gross

[Anonymous Coward]

For tens of thousands of years, humans lived on a staple of hunted animals,

WRONG!!! Please come back when you get your head of of your ass.

Re:Gross

[AJWM]

It's funny how humans have lived on a staple of grains, rice, potatoes for thousands of years,

Well, outside of South America, potatoes have only been part of the diet for the last 500 years (less than that, really). Grains and rice have only been a significant part of the diet since the invention of agriculture somewhere between 5000 and 10,000 years ago.

That's a tiny fraction of the several million years since the hominid line split off from our primate bretheren, and throughout that -- and for millions of years prior -- we've lived on meats (including grubs and insects as well as small animals), fruits and vegetables. Not grains.

Re:Gross

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Americanized "European" diet.

Europeans on European diets are not fatballs.

Re:Gross

[bobsalt]

"It's funny how humans have lived on a staple of grains, rice, potatoes for thousands of years..."

ok, but how much has the human body changed in the past, say 6000 years? I really doubt that much. It definitely isn't designed to eat box meals made up of processed grain. The human body is by design an omnivore. Our eyes look forward, therefore we eat meat. We have canines for tearing into meat. We have molars for crunching berries, fruits, grains, and greens. I think the Atkins diet is probably much more natural to the body than others. What the hell do you think fruit looked like 6000 years ago? You think there were fruit trees just bursting with fruit everywhere? No, the descendants of today's fruit/grain is a very far cry from what they were then. Domesticated food supplies are a much different than they were when the human body was evolving.

I have been on this for 5 weeks and have lost 20 lbs.
I dont have the cravings liek I used to either. Also, I don't have the period in the afternoon when I feel sleepy like I used to.

No Caffeine?

[magellanic]

How can this diet become popular with hackers if it involves giving up caffeine?

Re:No Caffeine?

[jc42]

I do note that the anti-caffeine item says "avoid", which isn't quite as absolute as the way the other items are phrased. And it comes with the explanation "Excessive caffeine has been shown to cause low blood sugar, which can make you crave sugar." Note that word "excessive".

Also, the very next item suggests 8 glasses of water per day.

A reasonable interpretation is that a low level of caffeine, say in the form of unsweetened coffee or tea, for one or two of those glasses of water would not be a material violation of the rules. But you do have to be the sort that can resist any sugar cravings that result. And this might not even happen with a small amount of caffeine, if it is consumed along with the meats, eggs and cheese, which do contain small quantities of carbs.

OTOH, if you're the sort who can't resist your 8 cans of Jolt each day, maybe you'd be better off just going cold turkey on the caffeine.

(I wonder if cocaine would be a good substitute? That's supposed to be a diet drug itself, right? ;-)

Re:No Caffeine?

[AssFace]

(I wonder if cocaine would be a good substitute? That's supposed to be a diet drug itself, right? ;-)

Ideally it would be crystal meth if you are going for street drug of choice. The Twin Labs Ripped Fuel and the like are all just chemical veriants of meth anyway.

Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[Phoenixhunter]

...is that it is boring. Running/jogging/walking is so utterly mindnumbing that I loathe the thought of it. Squash on the other hand, a European game that is played in the US as well (mostly in the North East) is a game made for people who need the constant feedback of 'something'. It requires fast reflexes and stamina.

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[BrianH]

Personally, I consider that one of the best aspects of exercise. My day is full of enough nonstop distractions from ringing phones, clients "just stopping by", tight coding deadlines, meetings, wife demanding attention, kids demanding attention, yards demanding attention...it never ends. That 45 minutes of solitude every morning, when it's just me, my thoughts, and the foggy trail ahead, are the only things that keep me sane.

And for reference: A year ago I was 6' 285lbs. Today I'm 6'1" 179lbs. No fancy diets, no gimmicks, no body abuse. I just reduced the number of calories going into my body (1300-1600 a day depending on activity level) and made a point to exercise whether I wanted to or not. I don't pay attention to things like fat content, carb content, protein content, or any of those other distractions that make dieting seem so complex, I just watch the bottom line....daily caloric intake. It works for me with NO risk of health problems, it's worked for my wife (30 lbs in 4 months), and it's worked for everybody else who's tried it and stuck to it. The human body evolved to deal with two realities: 1) That people are constantly active. 2) That high calorie meals are rare. That we have eliminated these realities in the last 100 years says a lot for humanity, but the underlying fact still remains...if you want your body to operate at its peak, you have to subject it to the conditions it was optimized for. Just like computers. GIGO.

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[Drakonian]

I find that interesting. I just started running but I wouldn't say I find it mind-numbing. It's so difficult for me I'm not able to focus on anything else. Just focus on putting one foot in front of the other, breathing regularly, etc. As someone else said, it's also good to clear your mind - I find it impossible to worry about anything else much when I'm running.

That said I do enjoy playing squash too - mostly for the competition I think.

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[matresstester]

How did you gain that 1"? That sounds like more of a break through than the diet...

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[krs-one]

I couldn't agree more. I'm a Freshman college student, and when I came to college, I realized I was overweight (6'2" 238lbs), and the idea of the Freshman 15 wasn't too appeasing. So, I decided to change that. Now, every morning I wake up at 530, go to the gym, and run for 30 minutes (at 6mph, thats 3 miles or about 530 calories) and thats before I've eaten breakfast. Then, throughout the day, I watch my caloric intake (I keep it under 2000), and then at night, I work out again. At night I'll do another 3 miles, and usually 30 minutes on the stairstepper, which can get 700 calories. Thats 1760 calories of working out. It is easy to loose a pound a day. In fact, in the 2 months I've been at college, I've lost 32lbs.

The key is motivation and you have to push yourself. It is not easy (especially for those of you who don't like waking up early). I have no pity for fat or obese people, even if they do have a disease that forces them to overeat or whatever that crap is. So stick with it, and loose the weight. No fancy diets (whatever this new south beach diet is, I have no idea), just low calories and exercise. Do it.

-Vic

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a guess, but he's probably referring to "real" height, as opposed to the height measured when you pull yourself into a completely upright position.

When a doctor measures my height, I'm 5'10". When I'm walking around, I'm probably two inches shorter, because pathetically weak muscles ruin my posture.

Were I to excersize, I'm sure my muscles would start pulling my body into a shape that less resembles a coathanger.

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[aonifer]

How did you gain that 1"?

Ever see Gattaca?

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[BrianH]

Heh, that one had me stumped too at first. My doctor later explained to me that it really isn't that uncommon for seriously obese people to gain height while losing a lot of weight. Between joint compression, spinal curvature caused by your gut pulling your torso downwards and forwards, and simple bad posture, most seriously overweight people are anywhere from .3" to .75" shorter than their skeletal potential. My gaining an inch (actually, about .9 inches) while losing 106lbs was a little on the extreme side, but it's certainly not unheard of.

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[dajalas]

I have no pity for fat or obese people

The only difference between you and the Klu Klux Klan is who you choose to hate.

You're the kind of rude jerk who's made life miserable for my sis.

Check in the dictionary under the word, "empathy."

Then STFU.

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[Urox]

I used to take dance lessons. I got to the point one summer where I did not have any fat visible on my thighs. That's pretty damn hard for a woman. The classes were for two hours, five times a day.

Later on, I took a workout class which lasted an hour, four days a week. I lost 15 pounds. I felt good and thought I looked good. I thought that if I could do this, then anyone could if they just kept at it and tried hard enough.

Then I started having health problems. Went to my doctor and found out I am hyperthyroid. This means my metabolism is kicked into overdrive. It is NOT good for your body. Supposedly, I could have had a heart attack at any time.

They put me on drugs that lower my metabolism and I gained 35 pounds. I have never weighed this much in my entire life. Those drugs mess with my metabolism and my overall energy level. I cut my eating down to a fourth of what I previously consumed. I still work out. My weight is not changing.

My doctor's only response to this is that I may be predisposed toward obesity and that there are some weight loss drugs that the FDA are coming out with. I hate drugs. Honestly, I would have preferred never to go on the anti-thyroid drugs to begin with as it is very depressing to eat less, work out lots, and see no change.

So the point of this long winded explanation is that not everyone's body is the same at burning calories and that different things will work for different people. Just because you can do it does NOT mean that someone else can.

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[Easy2RememberNick]

BrianH made the most sensible comments of anyone here.

Re:Fundamental problem with most exercise...

[Slime-dogg]

Since we're into the whole "Witness" mood, I might as well tell my story. It's quite the backwards version of yours though. I went to college at 5'11", weighing about 175. I came back the first year at about 205, I drank entirely too much beer, and didn't exercise very much at all. After this, my second year was no better.

After that, I transfered schools and got involved at the Y. I started running for 10 minutes, then hitting the weight room. I lost about 30 pounds in two weeks, and gained about 20 after that. I was trim, but I didn't really care about my diet that much. In fact, I still don't care about my diet that much. I realize that I need to get a good amount of fat, protein, and carbs... I generally veer towards the first two out of default: they taste better.

My carb intake spikes on weekends, when I'm sampling my collection of fine beers. I'm not too concerned about it though. I figure that I'll burn off any excess on Monday, because I typically do. My routine is fairly full-body, I start with 20-30 minutes of aerobic exercise (usually elipticals because I really don't run well at all). I then go to power cleans, squats, low-rows, and bench. I finish off with biceps, triceps, deltoids and trapezius, and then work on abs.

I don't have a six-pack. In fact, I don't want one. I do have good muscle mass, and could be considered "overweight" by the typical carbo-munching skinny-boy marathon runner scale. I'm 5'11", and weight about 210 lb. I guess I could pass as a football player, but I'm more one for the band.

Weight training is quite possibly the best way to target fat on your body. Running and doing tons of aerobics will burn fat, especially if you go long enough (we're talking >30 minutes), but it's the anaerobics that burn fat immediately. When recommending an exercise routine, I would recommend rounding out your cardio with some sort of weight training. You will see benefits with one or the other, but not as many with both.

everything is a hack

[Anonymous Coward]

haqattaq

Atkins is no good

[mark_space2001]

I don't know anyone who's lost weight with Atkins. Mostly it makes people sick, and all the meat drives their cholesterol levels up. (Didn't know that, did you?)

Actually I take that back. One woman I know did loose weight on a high protein diet. She had been trying to get pregnant for many years, and when she did she went to the doctor and got a stern talking to about her weight, which when combined with the pregnancy wasn't a good thing. Like nearly life threatening.

So after the baby was born, she went on a high protein diet that was recommended by her doctor. Since she was very obese, her medical health insurance paid for it. She went through a special medical firm that specialized in this program. She had heart check-ups like daily to make sure there were no imbalances in um potassium I think, and she had a boatload of proscribed vitamins that she was taking to replace what she was loosing daily due to ketosis.

That medically managed program worked for her. Buy the book do-it-yourself jobbies are disasters. If you think you might qualify, see a doctor and find out if your health insurance will cover a medical program.

If not, then there is only one answer. I'm sorry I don't have the Opus cartoon to link to, but I do remember the quote after Opus's latest fad diet, a combination of the Parsley and Prunes diet and the Frog legs and Flatulence diet.

"Eat less and exercise more."

Darlin' there ain't no other way.

Re:Atkins is no good

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anyone who's lost weight with Atkins. Mostly it makes people sick, and all the meat drives their cholesterol levels up. (Didn't know that, did you?)

It's true some people feel a bit sick for the first few days as the body goes through carb withdrawls. Sugar/carbs = easy energy for the body, much like certain drugs. Once that passes though, most people start to feel great, better than before. Oh, and medical studies have shown it does not drive bad cholesterol levels up. There is HDL and LDL you know, and the ratio between the two can be more important the overall level. Being overweight causes high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, neither of which are particularly good for you.

"Eat less and exercise more."

And if you understood the diet, you'd know it does this. By eating more protein and more fat, and fewer carbs, you break the hunger cycle. Eat 1000 calories of fat, and eat 1000 of carbs, and see which one keeps you full longer. If you feel full longer, you'll eat less.

Re:Atkins is no good

[csimicah]

Mostly it makes people sick, and all the meat drives their cholesterol levels up. (Didn't know that, did you?)

Huh, no, I didn't. Apparently neither did the people who participated in this NEJM study that shows just the opposite.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/348/21/2 082

Re:Atkins is no good

[bobwoodard]

Mostly it makes people sick, and all the meat drives their cholesterol levels up. (Didn't know that, did you?)

Hmmm... scientific studies fly in the face of your cholesterol claim. That being said, any change in diet that restricts caffeine will give the caffeine addict a headache.

Re:Atkins is no good

[browbeat]

Stop listening to the b.s. put out by the media and try it yourself. I have been on the diet 4 years ( in maintenance for most of that). I was borderline hypertensive and had high cholesterol. I was on the verge of needing medication to control this. I went on the Adkins diet instead of the meds. I have had my cholesterol and blood pressure checked every year and both are normal and my weight is down 70 pounds.

Re:Atkins is no good

[thatguywhoiam]

I don't know anyone who's lost weight with Atkins. Mostly it makes people sick, and all the meat drives their cholesterol levels up. (Didn't know that, did you?)

That's not true, and there are thousands of people.

This post is not Insightful - you just offer a gross observation and then talk about your friend's complicated pregnancy. WTF.

Re:Atkins is no good

[Anonymous Coward]

she had a boatload of proscribed vitamins that she was taking

Damn. Every time I try to pick up some proscribed "vitamins", I get busted.

Article reads like my inbox

[Dark Lord Seth]

What's next? Viagra advertisements? Mortage deals on Slashdot? HARDCORE XXX TEENS in my journal? ... Wait...

Re:Typical Geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

something is clearly not right when you have to add vitamin supplements because your diet doesn't provide you enough.

Screw Atkins, go Vegan

[Klowner]

I myself am not a vegan, but my mother is. She's nearly 50 and she only requires about 5-6 hours of sleep, and is way more hyperactive than I am (I'm 20, and about 10lbs over where I'd like to be). She didn't go on the diet to lose weight or anything, just for health reasons.

I don't have the will power to do such a thing, but I know I'd be more mentally and physically active if I did.. And although the high meat intake of the Akins diet may cause people to lose weight, I know it would make me feel like crap in the long run, and give me cancer or something. I've also heard of people on the Atkins diet having real problems with energy, although most geeks don't expend much physical energy, the mental energy is still required.

utilizing low-carb methods to modify the metabolism is analogous to hacking and overclocking the body
Yeah, and overclocking often causes equipment to have a slightly shorter life span, doesn't sound good to me.

If anything I need to give up the coffee and start eating more plants.. And if anyone is interested in learning more about the diet here it is.

- Klowner
[Klown's Wallpapers]

Re:Screw Atkins, go Vegan

[cymen]

I've also heard of people on the Atkins diet having real problems with energy, although most geeks don't expend much physical energy, the mental energy is still required.

For the first couple of weeks of the Atkins diet, the dieter may feel a lack of energy. I didn't notice any energy loss at all. After that initial hump, people on the Atkins diet generally have more energy than they did before. I believe that one of the reasons for this is that the Atkins diet leads to stable blood sugar levels (avoidance of sugar and excessive carbs).

AFAIK, the cause of cancer is still unknown and hotly debated. I would make any life decisions based on FUD! Like some of the other posters, I fell off the wagon fairly quickly. Changing my diet was harder than I would have thought but I'm going to try it again. For me, the hardest part was learning to cook new things.

Re:Screw Atkins, go Vegan

[AJWM]

She's nearly 50 and she only requires about 5-6 hours of sleep,

That's probably the reason right there, nothing to do with being a vegan. Everybody tends to need less sleep as they get older.

Me, I figure I didn't spend three billion years climbing to the top of the food chain to just eat vegetables. How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a leaf anyway?

Re:Screw Atkins, go Vegan

[Jesus 2.0]

I myself am not a vegan, but my mother is. She's nearly 50 and she only requires about 5-6 hours of sleep, and is way more hyperactive than I am

That's because her body thinks that it needs to give her some extra juice so that she can finally catch a rat to eat.

Re:Screw Atkins, go Vegan

[Anonymous Coward]

I 2nd that. I'm a vegan geek (forget willpower, I married a vegan who's a good cook).
BTW why are Americans so obsessed with weight?

Re:Screw Atkins, go Vegan

[RhetoricalQuestion]

Whether or not you will have more energy on a vegan or vegetarian diet is highly dependant on what your diet was like before and after.

I've been vegetarian (lacto-ovo, though I don't usually eat a lot of cheese or eggs) for over 13 years. Prior to that, I probably ate meat less than a couple of times a month. (No one in my entire family eats meat, but my folks never prevented me from eating it.) In extended family, there are several vegans as well. My spouse's family, on the other hand, is your typical meat-and-potatoes type.

I've lost weight, gained weight and maintained my weight this way. I've gone through periods of having higher and lower energy, and needing more and less sleep. I've regularly eaten healthy, well-balanced meals and I've regularly eaten crappy junk food. Same with the rest of my family. Same with my spouse's family.

Most (certainly not all) the vegetarians/vegans who extol the health and energy benefits of vegetarianism have not been vegetarian for as long as I have -- and certainly not as long as my parents or grandparents. My theory is that these newbie vegetarians are feeling more energetic because:

1. They have that rush of excitement from trying something new and telling everyone about it.
2. They're more conscious of what they're eating and ensuring a better balance, with less junk.

Vegetarian, vegan or not -- eating a balanced diet will make you feel better. Eating crap will make you feel worse. For a while in university, I was pretty much living off veggie burgers, fries, and onion rings. Completely vegetarian (even possibly vegan) but I gained 20 pounds on this. And I had no where near the energy of my meat-eating, chain-smoking mother-in-law.

Re:bad idea? Get the facts straight.

[xiaix]

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about, or at least have been misinformed.

1) Atkins is not a starvation diet in any sense of the word. Sure, there are things that you should not or can not eat when on it, but it is far less restrictive than many or most other options. Most importantly, calories are not restricted. You not only are not expected to starve youself, but doing so would go against the principals of the diet plan.

2) Dr. Atkins died at the age of 72. He slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk, fell into a coma, and died a little over a week later. Neither his death nor his 2002 heart attack were in any way related to diet, as research will show.

3) It is not just 'fatasses' who find the diet effective. Many bodybuilders use Atkins or cyclic variation on the ketogenic diet in order to keep their bodies in peak shape. My father, who was athletic in his younger days but now is disabled and, due to his disablilities, physically unable to exercise has dropped close to 50 pounds on the Atkins diet, and is because of this is more able to lead a normal life.

Remember: Not all fud comes from Microsoft. The ADA has spread more than its share of misinformation. Most of the newer studies showing the Atkins plan as safe and effective were actually done to try to show that it was dangerous or ineffective. The researchers were forced to acknowledge that based on their experiments, this was not the case and it is indeed a safe and effective dietary plan.

You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[ebusinessmedia1]

You can't fool Mother Nature

Human beings did not evolve to subsist on protein. We evolved as *active* animals who browsed and hunted for food.

The current social environment mitigates against health. There is too much food available, too much stress, not enough 'meaningful personal connection' (loss of the tribe?), too little movement [exercise], etc.

It's understandable that a population that is grossly unhealthy seeks tweaked solutions to health.

Atkins, like many other tweaks, will sooner or later be found to cause health problems, and drop from favor.

What's unfortunate - and ironic - about all these body tweaks, is that there is a grain (pun intended) of truth in most of them. It's probably a good thing that people move away from refined carbohydrates, add reasonable amounts of healthy fat to the diet, consume a greater portion of protein relative to carbs than has been the case for the last several decades, etc.

Unfortunately, the 'overclocking' crowd hoes whole hog (pun intended, again) on this stuff - the water diet, the grapefruit diet, the protein diet, etc. A price will be paid.

The Atkins Diet not what Mother Nature intended, and she always has her way in the end.

What I would like to see is a more in depth analysis - by individual - of how different bodies matabolize different foods, or combinations of foods. That day is coming. When we're they're (it's a way off), we'll have a better idea about what 'works' for us as individuals, and be able to intelligently act on that.

One last thing: populations and food availability co-evolve. One of the reasons why the French and Italians do so well with a lot of wine is because they're been drinking it for hundreds of generations. Those who coudn't take the Italian, French, Chinese, or whatever diet, died off, and tended not to reproduce. Those who were left are the ones who were able to handle it, and thrive on it (for the most part).

There have been interesting studies that return Southwest American Indians to their original diets, lost generations ago. What's startling about these studies is that many individuals who were diabetic, or had other health problems, experienced dramatic returns to health, or major improvement as a result of diet.

We might say the same for the typical American diet, with it's high sugar, refined carbohydrate and other oddities. If we did nothing at all, over generations (many of them) an 'American' genotype would evolve that was able to deal with the current toxins in the American diet (even pesticides), and thrive on them.

Sure, Atkins will work very well for some small number of people over a long period of time. However, many more people will most likely pay a price in compromised health (or general frustration)over the long term with Atkins diet, or any other diet that doesn't work the way MOther Nature intended.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Malcontent]

The human body was not designed to eat wheat or rice. Go ahead I dare you to eat a handful of wheat or a handful or rice from raw from the plant. Even if you managed to soak the wheat kernels and ate them you could not eat more then a 1/4 cup before being stuffed to the gills.

OTOH you can eat ten times that amount of wheat every day if it's in the form of bread or pasta.

If you want to eat food that your body was designed for go on a raw food diet. That's the way your body was designed to eat.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[The Snowman]

The Atkins Diet not what Mother Nature intended, and she always has her way in the end.

Mother Nature did not intend for us to sit on our asses all day, eating cheeseburgers and french fries. Compared to the previous thousand years or so, our race has been very sedentary and has eaten too much sugar the past hundred years or so.

Atkins is not about low carbs so much as balanced carbs, i.e. what humans had been eating before soda/cola was invented and the industrial revolution made [most of] us fat and lazy.

We might say the same for the typical American diet, with it's high sugar, refined carbohydrate and other oddities. If we did nothing at all, over generations (many of them) an 'American' genotype would evolve that was able to deal with the current toxins in the American diet (even pesticides), and thrive on them.

It would take a very long time, perhaps 1,000 years, for our race to evolve to the point it could consume carbohydrates without consequence. By that time, many generations would have died from diabetes and heart disease. Why wait? I am alive now.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, and Mother Nature didn't really intend for humans to live much beyond 40, either.

But it's natural and therefore faultless in every way!

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

Mother Nature did not intend for us to sit on our asses all day, eating cheeseburgers and french fries.

Well FUCK Mother Nature then.
Who needs that old CUNT anyway.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I'm dying of infection! Using antibiotics would be an affront to her.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Trepalium]

Fine. I want to see you eat a 1/4 cup of ground beef, and see how you feel two or three days later.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to see you eat a 1/4 cup of [raw] ground beef, and see how you feel two or three days later

The incidence of food poisoning secondary to eating uncooked ground meat is almost always the result of an unsanitary grinder. If you pull meat out of a healthy animal, it's sterile (hence the taboo against carrion).

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[MoralHazard]

This old logical fallacy? Haven't you ever read "Candide", man? Modern civilization is THE TESTAMENT to the triumphs of technology over "Mother Nature". Try this on for size, ebusinessmedia1:

"Human beings did not evolve to hunt using guns, or to farm using plows. We evolved as hunter-gatherers who browsed and hunted for food without implements."

Fact is, evolution is NOT, NOT an intentional, planned affair, as your second sentence implies (and upon which your entire argument depends). Evolution produces, in each generation, an organism that can thrive in a range of possibile scenarios. The state of a current generation DOES depend on the conditions under which its parent population evolved, but that doesn't mean that the population can't deal with different conditions. Conditional changes occur in nature all the time that put organisms into environments that differ from the conditions under which those organisms evolved... in fact, that's what CAUSES evolution. They don't always deal well with it, but they thrive often enough.

So you build a "best of all possible worlds" fallacy on top of a confusion of "sufficient" conditions with "necessary" conditions, enough to reverse the factual relationship between the cause and the effect.

Look at the theoretical picture, by analyzing the whole class of phenomena: the human immune system didn't evolve in the presence of antibiotic treatments. But we're not objectively worse for the wear. Same thing with cars or horses (as opposed to walking). Sure, there are costs of these kinds of advances (pollution) or hidden risk-shifts (a population with substantially lower native bacterial resistance, after a while). And those costs may or may not outweigh the benefits of the technology. But by and large, technological advancement helps rather than hurts. As evidence, I would point out that the human race has generally exploited technology to minimize environmental threats and increase productivity, both of which contribute to a greater short-term and long-term survivability of the species.

I like the book "Hammer of the Gods" (ripped off as "Armageddon") for the super-example: the dinosaurs all died because they couldn't do anything about a massive asteroid impact. While humans may or may not be able to actually detect and prevent/minimize an asteroid impact, we can at least discuss the possibility and make a reasonable attempt. Give us 50-100 more years of technological growth, and we will certainly be able to stop an asteroid. We are the most successful organism in the history of the planet, because we have the potential to become nearly un-extinctable, as a species. All because we say "FUCK YOU!" and flip the finger to Mother Nature, and we try to take an active control over our destiny.

Oh, and for the record, I'm with you on the Atkins topic, specifically: they're just now starting to see cancer risk accumulations associated with regular pot smoking, but only over a 30-40 year span. I'll wait on Atkins until a substantially larger population has guinea-pigged it and found out the REAL risks.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[AJWM]

Fine. I want to see you eat a 1/4 cup of ground beef, and see how you feel two or three days later.

Well, I can virtually guarantee that he'll have lost weight ;-)

Seriously, though, ground beef is also a fairly recent invention (to say nothing of modern slaughterhouses). A slice of muscle cut from the animal without nicking the intestines shouldn't cause much problem.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[greg_barton]

Human beings did not evolve to subsist on protein.

Supply proof for that statement, please.

Atkins, like many other tweaks, will sooner or later be found to cause health problems, and drop from favor.

Really? Do you also know where the Dow will close tomorrow?

The Atkins Diet not what Mother Nature intended

Really? Do you chat with her regularly? Are you also on a first name basis with Jesus?

What I would like to see is a more in depth analysis - by individual - of how different bodies matabolize different foods, or combinations of foods.

Really? Seems to me that you're much more inclined to judge before you have any evidence.

Sure, Atkins will work very well for some small number of people over a long period of time.

Really? How do you know that this percentage is small? Have you seen some studies on this? Oh, that's right, you just said that such studies don't exist.

For you, I prescribe a diet of empirical and logical thought, to be implemented for at least one year. That might cure you of your overweight head.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Trepalium]

Unsanitary grinder, or butcher. If the carcass wasn't clean before butchering, it doesn't matter how clean the grinder was. And if the carcass wasn't clean, every cut the butcher makes with his knives spreads the E.coli bacteria across the surface of the meat. Then there's poultry. Even raw eggs can contain salmonella, which is to say nothing about the bird itself. Undercooked poultry has been the cause of many unpleasant post-thanksgiving dinners for many people.

Modern butchering practices are largely responsible for this danger, but are you going to go into a field, kill and animal, and then attempt to eat the meat from it's bones yourself? Nearly every part of an animal gets used when it is butchered, which is something you likely wouldn't do if you had killed the animal yourself for your own use.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Joe Tie.]

Sure you can fool mother nature. A huge amount of our medicine involves tricking the body into behaving in a manner different than what it would normally do.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah well your mother nature didn't intend for you to sit 14 hours a day in front of a fucking monitor in a 6x8 cubby hole banging out code either there nature boy.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

What I would like to see is a more in depth analysis - by individual - of how different bodies matabolize different foods, or combinations of foods. That day is coming. When we're they're (it's a way off), we'll have a better idea about what 'works' for us as individuals, and be able to intelligently act on that.

You mean like this: http://www.6weekbodymakeover.org?

Despite the name, it really is a sane program. Their philosophy is to have you eat five or six meals a day, but to measure out the amount of carbs, proteins, and such that you take in. It customizes according to the manner in which you seem to metabolize.

My wife used the program with a great deal of success. Its biggest benefit is the same as many other diet programs - it gives structure to those who need it. It's easy to tell someone to eat moderately, it's another (and much more effective) thing to give them an idea of what moderate is most likely for you.

In addition, there's various books which advise one on what sorts of food to avoid and what to eat based on your blood type. I don't know that much about the scientific basis behind those, however - I'd be curious if anyone has read them and can comment on how reliable the science found within is.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[iabervon]

Carbohydrates aren't actually good for anything except for calories. Complex carbohydrates are good for short-term storage (like overnight), sugars are good for immediate use. If you manage to get enough calories to do whatever you're planning to do, it doesn't matter if you use carbohydrates in your diet to do it. Of course, there's no way you're going to run a marathon without carboloading the night before, since you need the short-term storage, but most people don't run marathons all that often.

The main thing that's different between carbohydrates and fats is that getting energy out of fats uses a process which suppresses hunger, and getting energy out of carbohydrates doesn't. This is why it's easy to overeat on carbohydrates: your body doesn't notice the caloric intake until you've physically stuffed your digestive tract.

Of course, protein is important, because the human body can't synthesize most of them. And there are a number of other things you need to get from your diet.

So, as far as diets go, cutting out protein is really bad, and cutting out fat makes you hungry. But if you cut out carbohydrates, you'll be perfectly fine.

Caveats: if your body is accustomed to a low-fat diet, it may not have the enzymes in place to get energy out of fat; if you just drop carbohydrates, it can be bad until your body figures out the whole fat thing. If you just cut out everything from your present diet that has carbohydrates, you may be missing some important vitamins which would normally come from the foods you're no longer eating. Some people have a hard time digesting meat (more people than you'd expect, in fact), and it's difficult to have a plausible vegetarian, low-carb, nutritious diet.

The overclocking analogy doesn't make much sense, of course. It's actually more like running your computer off of battery instead of wall current. It's a different power source with somewhat different characteristics, but it's no worse and possibly better in the long run. And it will get the "battery depleted" light to go off.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Guppy06]

"Human beings did not evolve to subsist on protein. We evolved as *active* animals who browsed and hunted for food."

We evolved as smart animals given the ability to figure out easier ways of doing things.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

DIe YOu UNfIT CREatURE! DONT U REMEMBER THE LESSONS FROM DArWIN'S THEORY? THY SHALT NOT REPRODUcE aND CReATE MORE UnFIT ONES. DIE!

heheh

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Ubergrendle]

Unfortunately we won't improve very much. Why?

A. We are 'outside' the normal evolutionary controls. Disease, famine, competition, etc we've all pretty much managed. More importantly, we live LONG after our reproductive age...after reproduction & a reasonable timeframe to raise our young, natural selection no longer has any impact. If you die at 60 because of a weak heart, doesn't matter...you're as good as an 80 or 90 year old from the eco-system's perspective.

B. Evolution -- natural selection -- take FAR longer than 1,000 years for larger mammals. Unless we're talking about extinction level events, we're not going to change overnight as a species overall. Variation is our strength, and its not natural for us to 'streamline' into a single genetic makeup. Especially with 6+ billion of us...

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Tablizer]

There have been interesting studies that return Southwest American Indians to their original diets, lost generations ago. What's startling about these studies is that many individuals who were diabetic, or had other health problems, experienced dramatic returns to health, or major improvement as a result of diet.

What did that diet consist of?

One thing about supermarket food is that a lot of the stuff they put in for "flavor" I don't really care about. I don't crave sugar nearly as much as when I was younger, and I can generally live with wholer grains instead of the powerdery stuff. Thus, *keep* the fat in there, but reduce the salt, sugar, and refined grains. I can live with that kind of food without maddly craving alternatives. Reduce the "sins" to only those you really miss.

But, they don't make food like that. You have to go out of your way to find or make it, and I hate cooking.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[The Snowman]

My point was that it would take a long time for evolution to kick in. Far longer than than even ten or a hundred generations.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Aetrix]

Pick up the book, "Coming Home to Eat," by Gary Paul Nabhan. He's a researcher with Northern Arizona University who details his experiences restoring the native diets of the O'odham, Seri and Yaqui tribes, as well as his presonal adventure living one year on foods produced within 100 miles of his home in Flagstaff.

ISBN: - 0-393-32374-9

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating raw meat from seemingly healthy animal might not give you a bacteria-originated food poisoning, but it does make you quite vulnerable to a whole lot of not so nice parasites.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to add to this that "Mother Nature" intended for most of you to be in a state of constant starvation, for all your teeth to fall out, and for you to die before the age of 40.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Malcontent]

I have eaten raw beef before and raw chicken and fish too. No big deal I felt fine. I eat sushi quite a bit come to think of it.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[ebusinessmedia1]

MoralHazard:
"Fact is, evolution is NOT, NOT an intentional, planned affair, as your second sentence implies (and upon which your entire argument depends)."
------------
ebusinessmedia:
Not so. You are reading that assumption into my argument, in order to make your own. In fact - whether evolution was planned or not [the solid evidence is that it isn't] - human beings have *not* evolved as primarily protein-and-fat-eating organisms.

MoralHazard:
"So you build a "best of all possible worlds" fallacy on top of a confusion of "sufficient" conditions with "necessary" conditions, enough to reverse the factual relationship between the cause and the effect."
------------
ebusinessmedia:
Again, you're reading into my argument. Read on, as I help you uncover your false assumptions.

MoralHazard:
"Look at the theoretical picture, by analyzing the whole class of phenomena: the human immune system didn't evolve in the presence of antibiotic treatments. [snip]...by and large, technological advancement helps rather than hurts. As evidence, I would point out that the human race has generally exploited technology to minimize environmental threats and increase productivity, both of which contribute to a greater short-term and long-term survivability of the species."
-----------
ebusinessmedia:
For you and me, as individuals, technology has "by-and-large" (as you put it) been beneficial. However, the opportunity cost has not been as benign to millions upon millions of individuals who have been selected out by one technological change or another. It's almost unconscious, but still a disingenuous argument to claim that technology has profited the species. Sure, technology has helped some members of the species, and we're thriving (in terms of numbers); *however*, technology is still a recent thing in terms of life's developmental timeline. The jury is still out.

MoralHazard:
"We are the most successful organism in the history of the planet, because we have the potential to become nearly un-extinctable, as a species. All because we say "FUCK YOU!" and flip the finger to Mother Nature, and we try to take an active control over our destiny."
-----------
ebusinessmedia:
Again, your assumption has 'not' been proven. The jury is out. For instance, will you or your progeny survive near-future develoments in proteomics and nanotechnology? (a moot point, because you wouldn't be here)

Will you consider it a "good" if your genotype gets selected out? Sure, some sembalce, some 'adapted' semblace of the human species will result, but to call this a "good thing", or claim it as a "win" over Mother Nature", is naive. We *have to* play inside the rules of evolution, that's our destiny, and evolution does not necessarily include a far-future for human beings. I suggest we hold oour applause for technology. Our "active control" has led to poverty, pestilence, and destitution for many. Technology (in its current, and near-future [Genomics/Proteomics, Robotic, Computer Science/AI/Cognitive Science, Nanotechnology, etc]) is a *very recent* adaptation. Let's wait a bit before declring "victory" over Mother Nature.

MoralHazard:
"Oh, and for the record, I'm with you on the Atkins topic, specifically: they're just now starting to see cancer risk accumulations associated with regular pot smoking, but only over a 30-40 year span. I'll wait on Atkins until a substantially larger population has guinea-pigged it and found out the REAL risks."
-----
ebusinessmedia:
Right. This will be a nice opportunity for those medical specialists who evolve to treat overworked kidneys.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

so in the mean time are you going to just stay fat?..for the next decade or two? Or are you not fat and just posting your decision on the atkins diet because you have one? No one is saying that people can not live on normal food today. But we are saying they are the causes of diabetes...heart disease...and a number of other problems and the numbers get worse and worse as you look down the age line...our kids are fucking huge now!!!

And just so you know...fat people are not the only ones that get heart attacks or have diabetes...out of everyone I know that are border line diabetics all of them are thin and eat sugar like there is no tomorrow.

Bigger problems are here now...you can replace kidneys easier than a heart. And if you do get diabetes atkins diet is the best route to go because sugar will be a huge no no then.

How old do you plan on getting? There are studies available now that say it reduces your risk for heart problems....if protien really was a problem for kidneys we would have thousands of body builders with burst kidneys today (body building started almost half a century ago)...and Atkins is nothing new either it's been around almost as long as body building. There is not one single report attributing someone on atkins to a major health defect. You can wait if you want...but a decade of sugar and fat+carbs will cut your life shorter.

ps-I've lost 70lbs on atkins. Dropped from 250@6'1" to 180@6'1" and on top of that I've gained muscle or lean body mass because of the high protien diet and lifting weights. I am in the best shape of my life and in better shape then most people I know. I almost have a six pack at 12% BF. To get at this point on a normal callorie less diet (and yes atkins is this too but the protien isn't there which means muscles get canabalized) would've been impossible for me. Plus I still have two cheat days on a CKD.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[frycarson]

Modern civilization is THE TESTAMENT to the triumphs of technology over "Mother Nature".

With that in mind, why don't we just use technology to solve the weight problem. Amphetamines work pretty good at lowering weight, reduce the necesity of sleep, and do a great joob at killing hunger. The downsides are all the other health effects, but nutritional injections could always help with soem of those. The problem is that sleep is when our body likes to repair and detoxify itself, so we still need sleep, but two days awake is easily feasable with minimal methmonsters or other side effects. Then we just need to figure out what drug will induce complacency to help with paranoia, maybe a synthetic opiate (that could also help with keeping the heart rate down). Technological solutions to lose the weight and keep it gone are here today*, but like the internal combustion engine, has some minor side effects.
*solution may cause imprisionment

-FRYCARSON: with the new 38 hour work day, just think of the improved productivity!

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[glassesmonkey]

Two things people miss is that the troubling "American" diet, is a post-60s phenomenom. It's a diet of non-whole foods and chemical additives. What Adkins does in a queer way is to have you avoid eating things which are the two biggest problems, processed sugars and processed wheats/grains.

Look at the post-70s 'revolution' of being able to manufacture sugars cheaply from corn (Akin to the corn-based fuel revolution). Cheaper fructose, glucose and sucrose syrup (sucrose = glucose-fructose di-saccharide) are the real problem in our diets. Forget the chemical additives that we have no idea how they effect our diet (and no studies planned)... It's all the pre-processed foods that basically make it into our blood easier and cause all hell with our insulin (hence diabetes will be staggering to baby-boomers).

Research by the American Cancer Society indicates that regular users of artificial sweeteners tend to gain weight not lose it. It is believed this is because artificial sweeteners may slow down digestion and increase appetite.

Saccharin is 300 times sweeter than sugar. Acesulfame-K is 200 times sweeter than sugar. There was a new 'sugar' I saw on a fark article that I can't remember the name (tuctose or something) that is 'natural' and less caloric than conventional sugar and they've found a way to mass-produce it cheaply.

Yes, there are evolutionary effect of diet (like the American Indians who thrive on low-calorie nut & berry diet) but this is a recent problem thanks to fast-food and mother "all-natural" chemical.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[spyderbyte23]

I have eaten raw beef before and raw chicken and fish too.

Caution: raw beef and raw fish are probably not that dangerous. Raw chicken stands a nontrivial chance of killing you stone dead. I knew someone who's dead because he cut his hand while preparing chicken to eat.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[Malcontent]

It wasn't in the US. I would never eat raw chicken raised on factories in the US. OTOH if I knew the origins of the animal and I knew that it was raised in good conditions and freshly killed I would have no problems eating raw chicken again.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[glassesmonkey]

I guess I wasn't clear.. In the parent I am refering to the introduction of HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP as a cheap, mass-produced, revolution of agriculture. It appears in everything we buy in a package from the store and I've never read much on how the body reacts to fructose vs. sucrose

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[atomly]

Look at the theoretical picture, by analyzing the whole class of phenomena: the human immune system didn't evolve in the presence of antibiotic treatments. But we're not objectively worse for the wear.

Are you serious? Overprescription of antibiotics is one of the scariest things our civilization has done in the last hundred years.

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[jafuser]

We might say the same for the typical American diet, with it's high sugar, refined carbohydrate and other oddities. If we did nothing at all, over generations (many of them) an 'American' genotype would evolve that was able to deal with the current toxins in the American diet (even pesticides), and thrive on them..

This could happen quite quicker than most people imagine, especially if you consider that the most obese among us (which are likely those who can't healthily co-exist with the american food lifestyle) will be less likely to reproduce.

I imagine it would not be long before we begin to observe a shift in our genetic makeup which causes us to change our eating styles and better process the food that we do eat so as not to become obese (and less fit to reproduce).

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[jafuser]

Taking into consideration our current social climate, being overweight (especially while young) is a very significant factor in determining your success at reproducing.

It would seem like the people who are able to maintain physically attractive bodies do so through strict disclipline or they are gifted with a body which can properly manage the dietary environment. The former may be carried on in memes, while the latter may be carried on in genese. Either way, those most fit to carry them on are those who will be most adapted for as long as it is socially unattractive to be overweight.

I would not discount the effectiveness of evolution until the rules of society govern that fitness is not an important factor in selecting a mate (which is highly unlikely).

Re:You Can't Fool Mother Nature

[geigertube]

"One last thing: populations and food availability co-evolve. One of the reasons why the French and Italians do so well with a lot of wine is because they're been drinking it for hundreds of generations. Those who coudn't take the Italian, French, Chinese, or whatever diet, died off, and tended not to reproduce. Those who were left are the ones who were able to handle it, and thrive on it (for the most part)."

I really doubt this, unless there was some sort of severe allergy involved. Even though the US diet is causing all of these problems in its population, they arent ones that prevent people from breeding, because it takes years for the diet to catch up with people.

Alternatively

[greygent]

Alternatively, you can implement a life plan where you exercise and eat right (Atkins diet != right).

The key is to collect recipes for quick meals that are comprised of as few processed foods as possible. A George Foreman grill is a must. I suggest subscribing to the few men's fitness magazines that are out there, as they have both recipes and exercises for people in a hurry. The magazines are tailored for busy people. Buy the $16.95 Body For Life book as it is full of exercise and food tips.

Dumb bells and a weight bench are cheap, alternatively, you could just go for 30 minute walks. Avoid driving, when possible. Shitcan your pansy-assed Segway. Invest in a good bicycle.

Fad diets, like the Atkins diet, are just stupid shortcuts that work, somewhat, but don't think it's a healthy lifestyle. The Atkins diet is for lazy people who don't exercise much. You'll certainly get thinner, but not any healthier. And once you go off the diet, you'll just balloon up again. Whereas with exercise and more muscle, your body will burn more calories (and fat).

Re:Alternatively

[The Snowman]

Alternatively, you can implement a life plan where you exercise and eat right

Exercise is "non-negotiable" on the Atkins diet. Read the book. The man was a heart doctor. He knew the importance of exercise.

Dumb bells and a weight bench are cheap, alternatively, you could just go for 30 minute walks. Avoid driving, when possible. Shitcan your pansy-assed Segway. Invest in a good bicycle.

I agree. Using machines (cars) to make our lives easier is a good thing, but sometimes we take it too far. There is such a thing as too convenient.

The Atkins diet is for lazy people who don't exercise much

See my point above. Atkins requires exercise. Maybe some people don't do it, but they are doing the diet wrong and doing themselves a disservice.

And once you go off the diet, you'll just balloon up again.

Very true. This is why there are four stages to the diet, with the fourth stage being the lifetime maintenance phase. It is not a fad diet. It is not meant to be used short term. And if you leave the diet, you will gain the weight back. Of course you will, since a high-carb diet just means your body stores the unused energy from the sugars. Duh. That's the problem we started with!

Re:Alternatively

[SiliconBateman]

Why not??? It is better than being a homophobe [see poster's history].

Re:Alternatively

[hubenshtein]

Horse Shit. The Atkins Diet requires none of these.

Re:Alternatively

[Pharmboy]

Fad diets...

I don't think 30 years is a fad. He said the same thing on his last day that he did on the first. Just because its new to you, doesn't mean its new. Some of us have been doing Atkins properly for a while now, and find it quite healthy if done correctly, not just "eat all the meat you want". The key is to educate yourself about doing it properly. You obviously have not.

Re:Alternatively

[cduffy]

Dumb bells and a weight bench are cheap, alternatively, you could just go for 30 minute walks. Avoid driving, when possible. Shitcan your pansy-assed Segway. Invest in a good bicycle.

I'm someone seriously considering the Atkins diet right now -- because the usual fixes just won't work for me right now. Note that the diet contains a "maintenance mode" plan (for keeping weight off long-term); it's not meant as a strictly short-term thing.

I do take 30-minute+ walks quite regularly, and never owned a Segway. On the other hand, a bicycle (which was my sole mode of transport in my old college town, where I was about 50 lbs lighter than I am now) is utterly useless where I'm currently living -- the city's just too spread out to get anywhere on one, the drivers to insane to risk being on the road with them, and there aren't any good bike trails within riding distance of my house. (There are some people who bike 360 -- the main highway between where I live and where I work -- but they're generally considered insane fitness-nut types; given the number and steepness of inclines on that route, I'd need a lot of training before I'd be ready for it -- plus an extra hour before and after work for travel time).

And anyhow -- between my full-time job (which has frequently involved all-nighters and, at a minimum, very long hours) and a half-time contract I'm considering, the traditional fitness mechanism just takes too damn much time.

Within these constraints, the Atkins route seems appropriate. It still requires some amount of inconveniance -- but not the massive time expendature that other routes to the same end require, nor will it strain my budget, and it's something I can actually do. (I'd also argue that, in this case, thinner is healthier, even in the absence of other benefits which a regimen heavier on exercise would provide).

Re:Alternatively

[ParamonKreel]

What you end up eating on the atkins diet is basically what you would get in any other athletic diet except a carbo-loading runners diet which is really only good for those of us who are running triathalons and marathons on a regular basis. Which tho we may not admit it, is not all of us. I lost 100 lbs on the atkins diet. After about 2 weeks of endulging myself on rediculous meals (not quite as bad as bacon wrapped butter, but almost), I switched over to eating chicken breasts, steam broccoli, salmon, tuna, asparagus, etc... All of my meals were what you would see your average "body is my temple" freak eating except that I didn't chug protein powder by the gallon.

Exercise was a must on the diet also. Once my appetite came down to a normal level (read I could eat a "serving" and be full) Exercise helped me keep loosing weight at a good clip (5lbs a week so as I needed to eat more to keep from losing more than that).

So don't say that Atkin's != right. Once you hit stage 2-4, you start introducing the good grains back in such as wheat breads, whole grain rice, and fruits, and this is what you end up eating "For Life". The "Bad" part of Atkins, the part everyone says is the diet, is the part you're supposed to use to get yourself out of being obese. What's worse, being 20-50 lbs overweight for the rest of your life, or eating red meat and eggs for a few months before going on a eating plan that anyone would agree is healthy.

The problem with Atkins is that people are using it to lose 5lbs, and then going back to eating cheeseburgers and other crap food. If you do need to loose the weight, do yourself a favour, Start Exercising (it'll make you loose weight like a demon when combined with Atkins, and it's a viscous cycle, the more you exercise the better you feel and the more weight you lose so the more you exercise), and don't just drop the diet when you get to a weight you like. Follow the rest of the book. Don't hit phases 3 and 4 too early though. Seriously hit them when you truly are at your ideal weight or 5lbs over, as you'll gain weight finding the balance. If you come off of it, you'll gain back weight because you'll basically revert to the diet that had you fat before you started this whole thing. That's another point with Atkins. Tho it's a great motivator that you can lose weight so quickly, you don't get enought time to change your eating habits. If it took 2 years to do right, you'd change your habits, but most people probbably wouldn't do it. The real will power in Atkins comes in sticking to it once you're slim.

Re:Alternatively

[jafuser]

I'll agree the GF grill is almost the perfect cooking appliance. However, the problem I have with it is that it's quite troublesome to clean compared to most other cooking apparatus.

I think it could be perfected if they designed it to let us easily detach the parts that get dirty and let us toss them in the dishwasher =P

Re:Alternatively

[Anonymous Coward]

the city's just too spread out to get anywhere on one...

No one said that you have to go everywhere on a bike.

plus an extra hour before and after work for travel time

Then your problem is that you live too far from work, or you work too far from home.

If you don't want to move or change jobs, then do what I do. My commute is one hour, one way (still shorter than some drivers I know). If I don't feel like spending two hours riding that day, I drive partway and bike the rest. I still get exercise, and I still save money on gas. And when I was new to biking, this helped me to work my way up gradually.

The point being, there are easy solutions, so it sounds to me like you're just making excuses.

Atkins does NOT work

[FunWithHeadlines]

The Atkins diet does not work in the long run. Yes, at first you lose the weight and this is why everyone thinks this is a great diet. But you cannot keep off carbs forever, you eventually have to bring them back into your diet, and as soon as you do the weight will come back. This is NOT the diet for you if you want permanent weight loss.

Now if you want to lose a few quick pounds so you can fit into your tux or something, this will work in the short term. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's permanent. It's not. And keep in mind that the lack of carbohydrates decreases insulin production, so you are playing with your body chemistry in a futile attempt to permanently lose weight.

Wand to permanently lose weight? Find a healthy, sustainable, balanced diet that cuts your daily caloric intake. That's it. Lose calories, lose weight. Sorry pizza boys, but that's the secret. Atkins fails because you cannot keep on that diet long term and be healthy. So you need to permanently drop calories while maintaining a balanced diet that will do the trick. That's hard to do.

Which is why so many people are fat.

Including ex-Atkins people.

Re:Atkins does NOT work

[The Snowman]

But you cannot keep off carbs forever, you eventually have to bring them back into your diet, and as soon as you do the weight will come back.

I've been eating low-carb for several months now and have no problem at all. Maybe people who are weak-willed and give in to cravings will have problems, but for them, will any diet work?

Is it impossible to "keep off carbs forever"? Because if it is, I must be defying some law of physics or something.

Re:Atkins does NOT work

[FunWithHeadlines]

"Is it impossible to "keep off carbs forever"? Because if it is, I must be defying some law of physics or something."

Nope, not impossible, but you are altering your body's production of insulin and forcing it to behave in ways that it was not designed for. Good luck, if you keep on doing this.

Re:Atkins does NOT work

[The Snowman]

Correct, I am lowering the production of insulin, since my body requires far less now. Since my liver is producing a normal, constant level of insulin, it will not wear out, causing diabetes. Compared to the people in this country doing a low fat, high carb diet, overweight, with diabetes, I think it is more than just luck.

Why is it that in the past century our sugar/carb intake has gone up through the roof, yet when Atkins said we need to go back to the way our species has eaten for thousands of years, people thought he was insane?

Re:Atkins does NOT work

[puppetman]

Bullshit

"Yes, at first you lose the weight and this is why everyone thinks this is a great diet. But you cannot keep off carbs forever, you eventually have to bring them back into your diet, and as soon as you do the weight will come back."

I've lost 20 lbs on Atkins (197->177) and I've read the book (obviously you haven't).

It's not "don't eat carbs", it's "don't eat bad carbs".

Today, for breakfast I had a cup of blueberries (heated till they were more of a sauce) with 1/2 cup of 2% cottage cheese and a handfull of roasted almonds. Lunch was a salad (organic red-leaf lettuce, smoked chicken breast, brocoli, almonds, a dressing without sugar, grated cheddar). Lots of healthy carbs there, and lots of fibre.

No sugar, no products with white flour, no potatoes, carrots or corn.

In fact, on Atkins, you count net-carbs - carbohydrates minus fibre. So if you eat a high-fibre vegetable, you subtrace the fibre from the carb count. Wonder bread is high in carbs, with zero fibre.

The diet is about getting rid of foods that have a high glycemic index. These foods raise your blood sugar too much, and your body responds with insulin, which turns the blood-sugar to fat.

To add insult to injury, it works too well. All that insulin in your blood strips out the blood sugar, causing you to crash; it also prevents your body from turning some of that fat back into blood sugar. Overall, your blood sugar and insulin levels looks like rollar coasters (which is very unhealty, and lead to diabetes).

Atkins is about maintaining consistent blood sugar throughout the day. You can eat lots of carbs, but from fruits and vegetables. Our bodies have not evolved to handle refined sugar and white flour. It makes us fat.

Re:Atkins does NOT work

[FunWithHeadlines]

"To add insult to injury, it works too well. All that insulin in your blood strips out the blood sugar, causing you to crash; it also prevents your body from turning some of that fat back into blood sugar. Overall, your blood sugar and insulin levels looks like rollar coasters (which is very unhealty, and lead to diabetes)."

Thank you for making my point. Atkins is unhealty in the long term. Enjoy your short-term loss.

Re:Atkins does NOT work

[puppetman]

I wasn't making your point:

"The diet is about getting rid of foods that have a high glycemic index. These foods raise your blood sugar too much, and your body responds with insulin, which turns the blood-sugar to fat.

To add insult to injury, it works too well. All that insulin in your blood strips out the blood sugar, causing you to crash; it also prevents your body from turning some of that fat back into blood sugar. Overall, your blood sugar and insulin levels looks like rollar coasters (which is very unhealty, and lead to diabetes)."

That's what foods with a high-glycemic index do, the opposite of what you eat on Atkins.

Before doing Atkins ...

[Tremblay99]

Check out research on trans, saturated, and unsaturated fats. Unsaturated fats (marine and vegetable fats) = good for you. They raise the good cholesterol. Saturated (tropical oils, red meat) = not so good. They raise the bad. Trans fats (hydrogentated vegetable oil) raise the bad and schwack the good (or the body's ability to use unsaturated, I forget which).

Atkins is extremely heavy on saturated fats, FWIW. It's a good way to lose weight (25 pounds in less than 2 months b4 hernia surgery), but it is not necessarily a good long-term plan. 'Course, the long-term benefits of losing a bunch of weight probably outweigh the problems associated with obesity.

While I'm at it ... red meat is nasty on the gut; it's a leading cause of colon cancer (having lost two family members to colon cancer, it's a concern).

A better, long-term diet (South Beach-esque) is to limit the saturated fats, bulk up on beans and nuts for protein + fibre (or chicken 'n' fish for protein), and, for god's sake, stay away from spuds, rice, and white flour.

One of the best studies ever done (and is still on-going) on the long-term effects of diet is the Nurses' Health Study at Harvard. Read on and do some researchin' ... since Atkins hasn't done any long-term research on his diet.

Discipline

[flosofl]

I am 5'8" rather large boned. Last March I was 290. I went to my doctor and he gave me a radical plan. Basically it was eat less excersise more. I was on a low cal (sub 2000 cal) diet for 1 month, and moved to ~2400 cals (which I still take in). I have a cheating day on Sun but still don't eat more than ~3000 cals. I work out 6 days a week for about 90 mins. I do a combo of cardio and weights emphasizing each on different days. I now weigh 185 have a BMI of 25, and feel great. I have more energy, and have been much more successful with the ladies :). My doctor told me most successful diets all boil down to the same thing decrease your energy intake while increasing your energy expenditure. It works, but it takes work... I hate working out, but its now a habit and I feel uncomfortable missing a workout.

Re:Typical Geeks

[csimicah]

Well that sounds logical... so a proper diet consists only of all the processed, fortified, chemical-laden food that's available on your grocer's shelf, EXCEPT whatever is in the Vitamin aisle. Makes sense. It's no more unnatural for me to take a vitamin supplement than it is for someone sitting in Maine to be eating a peach in November. Modern food science is the only thing that makes either of these possible.

High Carb, High Excercise

[gotw]

I'm a cycle messenger by trade. I have a very high carb, high excercise diet routine. The atkins diet does seem to work from what I hear from people ... work inasmuch as they lose weight. But is it healthy? People I know who have done atkinds have been close to delerium at points while following the diet. I know that some would consider my lucky to be doing the amount of excercise where I don't have to worry about it, but the brain needs some carbohydrate for concentration and such. A more apt solution would be a better balance between work and life for the office workers, if people have time to prepare and enjoy good food then they will eat better and have less problems with it. So many people just work work work and eat crap to fuel it and develop a problem with it while they aren't even looking.

Freudian slip?

[FunWithHeadlines]

"Wand to permanently lose weight?"

Yes, before everyone jumps on this, I just noticed this very Freudian typo. Ah, if only there were a magic wand that could make us lose weight...

Oh, my...

[InsaneCreator]

As digital-rights attorney Mike Godwin, who lost more than 80 pounds by cutting carbs, says, "It's like you're exploiting a security hole in your own body."

This sound like "loosing weight through sodomy"!

Overclocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta strap some water cooling on to the kidneys.

Atkins Diet not for Vegeterians

[Anonymous Coward]

Note I said vegeterian, NOT vegan. I don't eat animal meat because it does weird things to my metabolism and I gain a lot of weight with it. I do not believe that eating animal meat is wrong.

I would try the Atkins diet if I wasn't vegeterian. Makes it kinda difficult. Ah well, suppose I don't need to diet anyway, my Doc says I'm not overweight even though I feel it...

Re:Atkins Diet not for Vegeterians

[ElvisOdysseus]

I've been eating a vegetarian low-carbohydrate diet based on Atkins since April with good results. This web site is also a good source of information on this.

Re:Atkins Diet not for Vegeterians

[Cpt_Kirks]

mmmmm, meat.

Sing along:

"Spam, spam, spam, spam, spamity spam,
spam-spam-spam!"

Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a diet where you just quit when you've lost weight. It's a change in your way of eating, and you can have still have a very proper diet on it. Once you've reached your goals, you can introduce some carbs back in (healthy ones, like fruits) to keep you at your ideal weight. You don't just quit and start eating pasta for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And, many people don't exercise because they're overweight, so losing weight often gets people interested in being more physically active.

Our "modern diet" is killing us, and since the government has been preaching "low fat" the past few decades, things have only gotten worse. People are eating more because carbs cause insulin surges which increase appetite.

Re:Sigh

[greygent]

So true, so true, I'd mod this way up, if I had the points

Re:Sigh

[drinkypoo]

You're right about the maintenance. People have been losing weight, going off their diet and gaining it back as long as the concept of a "diet" in its current sense has been around.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a "good" carbohydrate. There are rapidly and not rapidly digested carbohydrates, which may be what you mean, but fructose is not one of them. It's pretty readily converted.

Induction doesn't last long

[Anonymous Coward]

And, notice, it's a recommendation, not a complete restriction. Some (most?) people don't have any blood sugar reactions to caffeine. I know I don't since I'm a type 1 diabetic and have a pretty good idea of what effects me and how.

I take it you've never actually read Atkins' books

[Walter Wart]

If you had you would have noticed a few salient points:

1) Vegetables, lots and lots of them, are an important part of the diet. Just not the high-sugar ones like carrots, most tomatoes, and a lot of the dried beans

2) Fruits are not absent. Again, low-sugar ones like raspberries are preferred to, say, apples.

3) He prescribes lots of water. Repeatedly.

4) Regular exercise is, and I quote "non-negotiable".

Why it works

[adjensen]

Okay, this is from the perspective of one who has done Atkins, and been successful at it. Not "I heard from this guy" or "my sister's friend told me". Real experience.

I've struggled with my weight since I was in high school over 20 years ago. I've been up and down, weight wise, for a long time. Tried low fat, exercising like crazy, and just failed at it.

Finally, in February of this year, I went on Atkins for the third time (first was just a fad that I didn't do seriously, back in the 80s, second took me from about 250 lbs to 230 about three years ago,) determined to finish the plan and get to my goal weight. I also began exercising by walking on my treadmill and walking when golfing instead of using a cart.

To do Atkins properly, you spend a minimum of two weeks on "induction," which reduces your carbohydrate intake to 20 grams a day or less. This forces your body to stop using simple sugars and other carbs for fuel and start burning fat. You will most likely feel like crap for a couple of days during this phase, but it will pass.

Right about then, two wonderful things happen very quickly which are what makes the diet successful for so many people. First, you will begin to notice, within those two weeks, that your clothes are looser and, if you are weighing daily, a pretty dramatic loss of weight. This positive feedback is mostly water weight, but not entirely, and you feel like you're making progress.

Secondly, and more importantly, changing from consuming mostly carbs to mostly fats and proteins has the effect of making you feel full on much less food. In addition, your blood sugar levels stabelize and most people see "food cravings" (like eating a box of cookies!) going away. A low fat diet simply replaces fat with sugars to make the food more pallatable, and you end up with a bunch of empty calories and you're hungry a short time later.

You're told that you can eat as much as you want, so long as you keep the carbs low -- I'm not sure that I agree with that, you still need to keep an eye on calories, but the point is that after a couple of days, you could eat ten burger patties, but you'll be full after two and won't want to keep eating.

Once you've gone through induction, you can either stick with it (as I did) or start adding carbs back, a bit at a time, until you're eating a more balanced diet but still losing weight. You do have to stay away from sugars and simple carbs, though, because that will screw up your blood sugar levels.

Now, onto the myths. First, I have never seen (and I've looked) any reputable study that says that kidney damage has resulted from a healthy person (healthy in that they don't have existing kidney problems or AIDS or something) following this diet. Pointers to such a report (not something sponsored by the "American Bread Makers Association") would be appreciated, if they exist.

Secondly, people will tell you that it's unhealthy because you can't eat anything but meat. That's crap. There are loads of veggies that you can eat during induction, and you can add more, plus fruits, as you progress through the diet. I stayed on induction for seven months, and enjoyed salad every day, along with green beans, cauliflower, broccoli, etc.

Again, the proof is in the pudding (sugar free, if you please) -- in September of this year, I finished the diet, weighing 180 pounds, the first time in about 25 years that I've been the weight I'm supposed to be for my height. Now, I just check my weight periodically, and if it starts going up, I watch things for a couple of days.

Finally, the greatest help for this (or any) diet is a website I'd encourage you to use. It's free, and it tracks your caloric intake, exercise and weight. It's at Fitday

Good luck to anyone trying to lose weight. Regardless of how you go about it, it's the best thing that you can do for yourself.

Re:Why it works

[Orphic_Egg]

Oh no, it couldn't have possibly worked for you.
Just listen to all the self appointed health experts around here.
What a bunch of opinionated know nothings.
I personally lost 50 pounds on Atkins 5 years ago, and the weight hasn't come back.

Congratulations on your success !

Re:Why it works

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting this. I've been on Atkins for the past two weeks (and it was rough at first) but I like the early results, and am planning on staying on Induction for the foreseeable future.

Two weeks, 12 lbs, sleeping better, and exercising again. The hardest part is not drinking beer (especially for this Eagles fan)

I'm having a salad and a porterhouse steak on the grill for dinner. :)

--AC

Re:Why it works

[adjensen]

The hardest part is not drinking beer

There are low carb beers (Michelob Ultra is the only one I ever tried, and it was okay) and regular Lite beer is fairly low in carbs, but you definitely want to steer clear of it during induction so that you don't waste carbs that you should be eating some veggies for their fibre and vitamins.

Re:Why it works

[Pharmboy]

You are 100% correct. In a similar situation in life, From 210-220 to 175 in six months, and steady for six months now, for a full year total. I treat sugar as toxic, and avoid wheat and aspertame as well. Never felt better in my life.

Re:Why it works

[iabervon]

I know several people who have had similar success on Atkins, a number of whom have reached the weight they wanted to be, and have gone back to eating carbohydrates to avoid getting too thin. One actually started because she was constantly hungry when she was eating carbohydrates.

Personally, I make sure to drink a big glass of cherry juice every day, because I'm not that fond of grains or sweets, and I'm frighteningly thin.

Re:Why it works

[iabervon]

Constant ketosis is a treatment for epilipsy, and from the records of patients under that treatment, there is evidence of kidney damage. This can be effectively treated with increased hydration (maybe that initial loss of water weight isn't such a good thing). Of course, the epilepsy treatment is much more extreme than Atkins, but it points out the potential risks and mitigating factors.

Considering that a large portion of people are constantly dehydrated, it's probably worth drinking more on Atkins.

Re:Why it works

[rich3929]

Hey, I just started about a week ago... but I'm finding the induction menu to be sorta limiting. Admitedly, I'm only eating an average of about 2-4 carbs per day, but I was wondering if you had any suggestions on ways to diversify my menu.

Oh, and I feel your pain on the beer (Also an Eagles fan)

Re:Why it works

[jafuser]

One actually started because she was constantly hungry when she was eating carbohydrates.

Just to be safe, you may want to suggest she see a doctor to have her blood sugar levels tested.

Re:Why it works

[Abcd1234]

Considering that a large portion of people are constantly dehydrated

Sorry, this is incorrect. Snopes link.

Re:Why it works

[iabervon]

If you actually read that link, it doesn't actually say anywhere that the portion of people who are dehydrated is not large. It says that only 6 glasses of water are necessary (or maybe less), and that coffee counts for 2/3 of the volume, and mentions a number of other myths. But it doesn't actually say that people actually have enough water in general, and it stands to reason that people would lose more water in an office with central heat and air conditioning (both of which dry the air) than they would normally.

Of course, the amount of water that people get is clearly enough to maintain their hydration level; otherwise they'd quickly die of thirst. However, this doesn't mean that people aren't generally maintaining a level below what is best for them, or that they aren't getting dehydrated during the day and recovering at night.

On the other hand, I think the study which I was remembering which found a large portion of people to be dehydrated was this summer in France, where thousands of people died due to a heat wave.

Re:Why it works

[Abcd1234]

If you actually read that link, it doesn't actually say anywhere that the portion of people who are dehydrated is not large

Actually, if you read the full text of the article, you would've notice this:

'[S]ome nutritionists insist that half the country is walking around dehydrated. We drink too much coffee, tea and sodas containing caffeine, which prompts the body to lose water, they say; and when we are dehydrated, we don't know enough to drink.

Can it be so? Should healthy adults really be stalking the water cooler to protect themselves from creeping dehydration?

Not at all, doctors say. "The notion that there is widespread dehydration has no basis in medical fact," says Dr. Robert Alpern, dean of the medical school at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.'

Good engineers read up before tinkering

[StrutterX]

Protein diets Atkins can be dangerous and can reduce your problem solving abilities.

Re:Good engineers read up before tinkering

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up the parent!

Humans aren't carnovires, and we're made to consume milk from our mothers' breast while young, not every day of our fat sedentary lives from the blended milk of ten thousand cows.

Healthy diets are 95% or more from non-animal sources.

Re:Good engineers read up before tinkering

[AJWM]

I note that McDougall pushes a "starch-based diet", his own line of vegetarian meal products, and runs a luxury-resort based diet program. A tad biased in outlook, perhaps?

He's also trained as a nutritionist -- thus thoroughly indoctrinated by traditional nutrionist thinking -- rather than as, say, a cardiologist like Atkins was.

What were we eating then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Human beings did not evolve to subsist on protein. We evolved as *active* animals who browsed and hunted for food.

Okay, then, what made up our diets? It was hunted animals (PROTEIN), nuts (PROTEIN), and the occasional bit of wild vegetable, fruit or honey. The only difference now is that we know that we'll have food, so we don't need to over consume to store up. Grains and agriculture are relatively recent developments in human history, and our bodies don't seem to have adapted quickly enough.

Re:What were we eating then?

[aussersterne]

It was hunted animals (PROTEIN), nuts (PROTEIN), and the occasional bit of wild vegetable, fruit or honey.

No. It was roughage, roughage, the occasional bit of small game (i.e. a bird/rodent/etc. probably 2-3 times a week) and very rarely a big game animal (once or twice per season). 60-80% of human caloric intake in hunter-gatherer populations was from vegetable matter.

Re:What were we eating then?

[Anonymous Coward]

This fairly backwards. Meat has always been a side-item in human diets, with forraged foods being the most common food source.

Re:What were we eating then?

[geirhe]

Okay, then, what made up our diets? It was hunted animals (PROTEIN), nuts (PROTEIN)

Nuts contain mostly fat, but you probably knew that already.

Re:What were we eating then?

[Tablizer]

The only difference now is that we know that we'll have food, so we don't need to over consume to store up.

Who knows, maybe us chubbies will be the only ones to survive the next nuclear winter, and produce ONLY chubbies so that there are no skinny movie stars to compare to after.

Re:What were we eating then?

[cduffy]

Here's a little experiment.

Go spent two weeks out of doors with no supplies. See what you can find to eat.

Last person I knew to do this ended up subsisting *mostly* on small game (and got to be extremely good at throwing rocks).

Re:What were we eating then?

[aussersterne]

Because naturally we can learn precisely how humans have evolved over the millenia in response to environment and nutritional needs by watching Eric Robert Rudolph wander around in the backwoods of modern America for a few months.

Yes, he's snaring racoons. By God, we must all be carnivores!

Re:What were we eating then?

[cduffy]

Satirize it all you like -- but I'd argue that deterministicly finding out what food is readily available to wild humans (by becoming one for a bit) is fairly deterministic -- as long as one has enough sampling points, of course. Which I don't -- but then, neither do you.

If you're going to argue that the actual diet is something different, I'd want to see some rather clear and convincing evidence (ie. an explanation of how the alternate figures were determined) before I'm going to accept it.

(BTW, did I earn that "foe" flag just by disagreeing with you once, or is there some more substantive explanation?)

Re:What were we eating then?

[aussersterne]

One on-the-Web account with a few citations is below, though I would disagree with some of the game-hunting claims even at these levels; the archaeological evidence for the regular hunting and consumption of big game in pre-agricultural societies is hotly debated.

http://www.nutritionreporter.com/stone_age_diet. ht ml

see also

http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/paleodiet. ht ml

for a mailing list dedicated to discussion of the paleolithic diet.

Most of the information we have about the paleolithic diet is archaeological; i.e. coprolite (preserved poop) or tissue (generally bone) that can be analyzed medically, or archaeological artifacts that may bear on behavior (i.e. tools, bones of animals that early man consumed that may show tool marks or give insight into hunting), etc.

Perhaps more simply, just phone up the anthropology department at local "U" and ask them... what did we evolve to eat? Avoid the Barnes & Noble stacks, most of the information that claims to be about the history human nutrition on their shelves is coming out of the diet industry.

I won't bother with the claim that in order to investigate diet or behavior in prehistory all one needs to do is move into the woods, or convince enough people to move into the woods that you have enough datapoints, then wait until they eventually stumble back out to a 7-11 on the road somewhere and phone in their experiences. If nothing else, I don't want to put that many anthropologists out of work!

As far as why you're a foe, I couldn't tell you. But I trust my own judgment. I often mark as foes people whose opinions on hot issues I find to be irreconcilable with my own. No, it's not censorship, since I can still see the posts of my foes, as can everyone else. But it does clue me in if I'm responding to something you've said that in the past I found you to be wacky.

Re:What were we eating then?

[juhaz]

Of course, that last person probably didn't do it where humans evolved (Africa) nor did he have much of a knowledge about edible plants, right?

Relevancy: somewhere around 0%.

Re:What were we eating then?

[MKalus]

Actually you have to break this up.

It seems that the hunting was done by the guys (go figure) but they hardly brought any of the "hunt" back, it seems they ate it all where they found or killed it.

The women on the other hand found and used the grains, so in essence you can say that the female body is more geared towards vegan / vegetarianism opposed to the guy who seems to tend to thrive on animal Protein.

It makes some sense, considering how much more muscle the average guy has.

But let's face it: There is no "magic bullet" that will cure all of our problems, it's different for each individual. I can't handle dairy while my g/f loves it. I like Soymilk while she can't stand the taste etc.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

An entertaining article on the subject was featured in the latest issue of 2600. It mainly concerned pasta and boiled eggs.

And whistling into telephones in order to launch nuclear weapons. *cough*

"Low Carb" is the new "Low Fat"

[Powercntrl]

Remember when "Low Fat" products were all the rage? The only problem with "low fat" is low fat usually doesn't mean low calories... Take Snackwell cookies for example, low fat doesn't mean shit if you're planning on eating the entire box in one sitting. Low carb is just another trend that is totally meaningless if you think it keeps you from counting calories.

The only reason diets like Atkins work at all is simple: just about everything has carbohydrates in it! There's so few things you can eat if you strictly adhere to the diet that you inevitably end up eating LESS CALORIES.

Howstuffworks has an excellent article on dieting and the gist of it is, you guessed it - limiting your calories consumed.

If you are willing to tolerate counting calories and figure out exactly what you need to maintain your desired weight, you can pretty much eat whatever you want. 100 calories of carbs = 100 calories of fat. If you're the type of person that needs a "banned foods"-type list to really feel like you're on a diet, Atkins probably is for you. If you're the type that can push away from the table - you probably don't need to do anything more than watch your calories.

Re:"Low Carb" is the new "Low Fat"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more than just reduced calorie intake. It's largely about how you get there. How many people that ate Snackwells would eat the entire box at one sitting? It's easy to eat mass quanities of carbohydrates since they don't make you feel as full as fast, or for as long, as eating fat does. I can eat something relatively unhealthy like a couple hot dogs (no bun) and feel full all afternoon. I doubt a similar quantity of carbohydrates would have the same effect.

Re:"Low Carb" is the new "Low Fat"

[The Snowman]

100 calories of carbs = 100 calories of fat.

Not necessarily. Take, for example, some french fries. They are almost pure starch, which provides tons of glycogen into the blood stream. Then take an equivalent amount of fat (25 grams of carbs v. 11 grams of fat). The fat, while having more than twice the calories per gram, is tougher to digest and for the most part you crap it out. Meanwhile, your liver is busy putting extra insulin into your bloodstream, your body, sitting on its ass in front of the TV, has no use for the sugar so (surprise) it stores it as fat for later.

So the sugar winds up as fat while the equivalent amount of fat winds up in the toilet. Nope, doesn't look equal to me.

Re:"Low Carb" is the new "Low Fat"

[AJWM]

You were doing fine up until the last sentence of your first paragraph.

In actual fact, recent medical studies have shown that on the Atkins diet, you can lose weight even with a higher caloric intake than on a lower-calorie but high carb diet.

Part of the reason for this is the metabolic pathway change, and part is probably an artifact of the bogus way that the caloric value of food is determined. (Burning it in a calorimetry bomb, which is nothing like how our body consumes it and thus ignores the energy costs of conversion.)

Re:"Low Carb" is the new "Low Fat"

[isfuglen]

Another thing about fat, simply put, is that you need to eat fat to get rid of fat. If you don't eat enough of it, your body will do all it can to keep the fat that it has. I know people who have broken their dieting plateaus by putting olive oil vinaigrette on their salads.

Re:"Low Carb" is the new "Low Fat"

[bmajik]

this is not accurate

there is more to weight loss than caloric intake restriction. atkins sort of gets it right by cutting carbs, but cuts carbs that don't need to be cut and makes no distinction between carb types and their various effects.

the primary issue with the modern american diet and excercize is the huge glycemic load our diets have. matched with our trivial levels of exertion, our bodies are constantly saturating our blood stream with insulin to keep blood sugar levels in check. insulin is the hormone the body uses to tell fat cells to open up and suck sugar out of the bloodstream. the vast majority of fat on the human body comes from absorbing sugar, not from digesting fats and then storing the lipids.

our diets are extremely rich in sucrose and fast-burning carbs, which spikes the blood sugar level. since insulin is the fat storage hormone, it is completely reasonable to see why we're so damn fat. furthermore, elevated blood sugars mean elevated insulin levels, meaning systems develop insulin resistance, requiring even more insulin in the blood stream to have the proper effect. it is virtually impossible for people with insulin resistance to be thin.

finally, the near 24/7 hour job most peoples pancreas do to keep insulin pumping through the body (due to the double whammy of insulin resistance and high blood sugar) wears out the pancreas at an accelerated rate. the incidence of type 2 diabeties in america has made obesity the #1 killer in the US.. even more so than smoking.

source: "the sugar busters diet"
please read the book before disagreeing with me. it's very informative. my doctor recommended it to me in february. i've lost ~30 lbs and i just pay attention to what i eat, not how much of it i eat.

Re:"Low Carb" is the new "Low Fat"

[Jerf]

The only reason diets like Atkins work at all is simple: just about everything has carbohydrates in it! There's so few things you can eat if you strictly adhere to the diet that you inevitably end up eating LESS CALORIES.

Bullshit. I've tried Atkins, you obviously haven't.

Of course, calling the Atkins diet a "low calorie diet" is silly; of COURSE it's a low calorie diet, it's just that it's a low calorie diet that doesn't involve constant, debilitating hunger. I for one can't just wave that away as an incidental detail; to me it's the thing that makes it work for me. I can't and won't be hungry every day. Calling it a lack of willpower is foolishness; when you're fighting against the very nature of neurons themselves (and conditioned responses), you're going to lose.

If you are willing to tolerate counting calories and figure out exactly what you need to maintain your desired weight, you can pretty much eat whatever you want. 100 calories of carbs = 100 calories of fat. If you're the type of person that needs a "banned foods"-type list to really feel like you're on a diet, Atkins probably is for you. If you're the type that can push away from the table - you probably don't need to do anything more than watch your calories.

You make it sound like you have some sort of choice what type you are. I won't deny I have some concious control over what I eat (after all I can choose to do Atkins), but there's nothing I can do about the fact that my body is very efficient at processing carbs into body fat, something it "perceives" as a benefit. There's nothing I can do (directly) about the fact that it insists I eat more carbohydrates to store for the upcoming winter. My wife's body does neither, and if there WAS a thin winter coming up, she'd have a hard time forcing herself to eat.

You don't understand Atkins. I don't have to count calories. Since it's what I should be eating, I eat until I'm full. Frankly, I couldn't care less how many calories are in things.

I really think at this point that excessive small-minded criticism of people who don't know Atkins, don't understand Atkins, and don't want to do either is out of line. If it were that dangerous or that bad, we'd know by now, because people have been doing it now for decades. That also gives lie to your implicit "it's just a fad" argument; it absolute does not fit the profile of a diet fad. They don't come back. I am willing to say that if Atkins is "coming back", it's because there must be something to it. If there isn't anything to it, then I defy you to explain my weight loss and consequent health benefits with "traditional theory". I should have gained weight according to it.

It's too late to dismiss it, it's working. The question to answer is "Why is it working?", not "Is it working?"

(Incidentally, since the default Slashdot position is "skeptic", which isn't all bad, chew on this: The more I learn about the "science" of nutrition, the more I realize it's not a science at all. In order to do a true controlled study of the effects of diet, you need to completely feed at least one group of your subjects (and preferably all of them) for the duration of the study, preferably many years. This is prohibitively expensive, and so is done only in the rarest of cases. Virtually no "studies" rise to the level of "true science". Just try to find the true studies that determine that "eating excessive fat is bad". Seriously, go find them. Others have very seriously tried and failed. I am no longer willing to trust the "science of nutrition" over the evidence provided by my own body, and that's because I'm a true skeptic, not despite it.)

Re:"Low Carb" is the new "Low Fat"

[Anonymous Coward]

>> The more I learn about the "science" of nutrition, the more I realize it's not a science at all.

As the late Dr. Saltman put it, "nutrition is a science; food is metaphysics!" :)

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/saltnm.htm l

Meta messages

[jonhuang]

One problem I have with the atkins diet is the way people who use it talk about eating. Read the article: everyone's talking about how many calories they can eat and not gain weight, or how eating the most meat is pushing their body into a new and better state. They've lost track of the idea that the atkins diet is primarily a substitute to the difficulties of maintaining a tradiotional diet--it's not some kind of game where you win if you eat the most calories!

Re:Meta messages

[Anonymous Coward]

"Meta Messages" - Metaphorically seeing messages you expect to see instead of seeing the real message.

What is atkins?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway of finding out what the diet is without having to buy the book?

Re:What is atkins?

[Cpt_Kirks]

Go to the library?

Or maybe atkins.com?

Or maybe a Gogle search on "low carb diet"?

Re:What is atkins?

[Simple-Simmian]

Walmat sells the book for like 4 bucks and change.
More info at The real deal

does it alwasy work?

[Suppafly]

Have any of you seriously followed the atkins diet regiment and not had it work for you? I'd be interested in hearing of cases where closing following atkin's suggestions hasn't worked. Everyone that I know who has followed it has lost weight.

Only works if you are fat

[AssFace]

Atkins or any low carb diet will only work if you are fat. Once you get down to a reasonable 12-15% bodyfay, then the low carb diet will stop being effective. So you get to go through all of the annoyance of converting the keytones for energy instead of carbs, all of the discomfort, and without any of the benefits - BONUS!

Once you get to 12-15%, you are better off going to a isocaloric diet (even percentages of fats, carbs, and protein - where most all of the fats come from the Omega3/6/9).
If you go lower total calories on that during the week and then going high carbs on the weekend (or just one day if you are highly sensitive), then you can see an anabolic rebound which is beneficial to those that are weight lifting.

It should also be noted that if you are trying to compete at all in any sort of endurance event - doing anyting low carb diet at all is about as retarded as you can get.
If you feel that you are going to do that, at the very least, try to get a lot of fruit and fruit juices so as to be able to replenish your liver glycogen levels.
But again - if you are you competetive at an endurance event, you are likely under 15% bodyfat - which means that you are wasting your time on the low carb diet.

No matter what diet you are on, as long as the calories are less than your expendatures for the day (so you can also not diet at all and just exercise more), then you will lose weight.
If you are fat - then you will see fast and great results down to about 20% bodyfat or so - then after that, you will start seeing resistance.

Depending on how long you sat at your high bodyfat levels, your leptin levels might be your worst enemy at this point - the carb loading on weekends and caloric depletions on the weekdays will help counteract that.

Once you go back to normal eating, then your leptin levels will again come back to haunt you.
So you can't just diet and then go back to eating like a pig - it is a lifestyle change.

Or you could just live life on the edge and use DNP - again, no good for endurance runners - and really no good for anyone. Especially if you are inclined towards depression at all since it prevents the conversion of tryptophan to serotonin.
Generally speaking, there is a reason the FDA banned it from diet drugs back in the day - it is dangerous - although the most effective chemical in existance for burning fat.

Re:Only works if you are fat

[belloc]

Only works if you are fat

Not true. My wife is an Atkins eater, and she's quite healthy. 5'10" and 140, runs three days per week, takes care of three little kids all day, looks great. She says she's never felt better that when she eats low-carb (NOT no-carb, btw).

'Course, what do I know? I've been 5'11", 165 since I was 16 years old, and have never been on a diet. ;)

Belloc

Re:Only works if you are fat

[AssFace]

Is she losing weight?

Re:Only works if you are fat

[belloc]

Is she losing weight?

No, maintaining. The way Atkins works (she tells me) is in phases. Some of the other posts on this story seem to corroborate. After you've lost the weight you want to lose, you gradually re-introduce certain healthy carbs until you're maintaining the weight that you're comfortable with. So, while it's not the hard-core "no carbs" diet that most people associate with Atkins, it is a later phase of the same diet.

[I can't believe I'm having an exchange with someone named AssFace, whose homepage is something about a clown's Johnson. My wife will love it. ;) ]

Belloc

Re:Only works if you are fat

[AssFace]

My point, when saying that Atkins "wouldn't work" unless you were fat was that one will not continue to lose weight on it.
You will reach a stopping point on it - that stopping point being based on your leptin levels - but it is generally around 12-15% bodyfat in men and closer to 20% in women.
Your genetics and how long you have been fat comes a lot into play as well.

It will indeed work to maintain whatever level it stops at - and then once you go back to eating how you did before, you will see a fairly quick increase in weight as you start to retain more water.

Low carb diets see very fast losses of weight at first largely due to the loss of water - and then after that level you get steady fat loss.
There is an enzyme that isn't created when you don't take in carbs, therefore you don't retain water under your skin and therefore you can have saltier food - once of the nice things about low carb diets.

I'm more of a fan of the cyclical type diets - but I work out, so they tend to go hand in hand.

As for my name, I think a lot of people immediately write me off based on that - it used to amuse me and now I have stopped caring one way or the other.
If you like my website name, I can assure you that I own more offensive ones too - none of them pointing to anything more than just the same random stuff.

Or...

[Kupek]

You could exercise regularly. Just a thought.

BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment is not only to you, but the others posting similarly.

So many people are saying "Yes, atkins worked for me, but after I quit I gained back all the weight and then some". Well, isn't this true for any diet that you "quit"?

"Eat less and exercise more"...atkins recommends more exercise...both of my drs. (changed health plans) recommended I go on Atkins. I said "what are you saying? I heard it was unhealthy"--to which they replied "The new studies are in..it works...just do it right."

So go read the news...it's okay for people to try new things, especially when the old things aren't working and the USA has never been more obese.

If you can come up with a better way, do it or STFU. "Eat less and exercise more" doesn't do a damn thing if you eat greasy calories in the form of processed grains, chips, etc.

research about atkins

[mr. marbles]

For example, in the medical journal Angiology, there was a recent study of people on the Atkins diet for one year who decreased the blood flow to their heart by 40 percent and increased the inflammatory markers. Ketogenic diets like these can also cause dilation of the heart, or cardio-myopathy. The high saturated-fat levels in those high-protein diets are linked to certain cancers. Some cancers are exquisitely sensitive to levels of saturated fat. So much so, that there's a six-fold increase in certain cancers in the saturated fat ranges that you see in some of those diets you mentioned.

The source

Diets are always a bad idea. It's like exchanging long term health for a few months of looking fit. The point to living well should be becoming fit, not just looking fit.

Re:research about atkins

[Anonymous Coward]

That study was conducted in 1999-2000, and subsequent studies have shown nothing of the sort. And, considering the health risks associated with obesity, I think it's a tradeoff many physicians would consider.

Re:research about atkins

[bobwoodard]

Wow, a Doctor of a competing diet plan (Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss) who doesn't think the Atkins diet is a good diet? Who would of thought?

Re:research about atkins

[Simple-Simmian]

Mod down not up.
More studies proved this is BS.
It source is based on a doctor with a competing diet.

The real deal.

Re:bad idea? Get the facts straight.

[Anonymous Coward]

3) It is not just 'fatasses' who find the diet effective. Many bodybuilders use Atkins or cyclic variation on the ketogenic diet

Really, if you're looking for sensible health advice, body-building lore is best avoided. (No offense to body-builders, it's just that they do a lot of undeniably unhealthy stuff in order to get so extremely ripped.)

Finally a subject I have a clue about...

[rockola]

A bit more than two years ago, I weighed 107 kg (you SI-challenged folks can surely do the math yourselves). Stopped eating sugar and starch, meaning no potatoes, rice, pasta, or bread. Started eating more salad and green veggies, but also stuff that in principle has lots of energy, like cheese. Lost 30 kg within half a year. Currently up a few kilos from low of 76 kg's because I've chosen to eat the occasional pizza. I didn't stop eating all carbs, just those I just named. Also, I didn't take up exercise, or try to eat less - just different.

Downside: had to get rid of all my clothes and get new ones.

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on nutrition, but this worked for me, and I plan to keep on eating this way. Had my cholesterol levels checked a year ago, everything was A-OK.

IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Tablizer]

Eat less, excercise more. It's free and easy.

Free, yes. Easy? No way. I have tried excercising everyday for about 1/2 hour, and only lost about 5 pounds. That payoff is like earning less than min wage. Plus, jogging can be boring as hell, and more interesting activities like basketball leave you sore and injured often. I still excecize, but not every day.

As far as eating less, your body knows very well that your intake is less than it wants, and not only cranks up the cravings to high heaven, but also lowers your metabalism to compensate, negating the effects. Being hungry all the time is miserable. It is comparable to having a slowly tighting vice on your arm. Constant discomfort.

It is going against 4 billion years of evolution that pushes us to hord food in preperation for lean days of no supply. Lean days are less likely in the modern world, but our body does not know that. Evolution is blind.

And, diet food tastes like cardboard. I would rather throw away the contents and eat the damned box! It tastes better.

Science/tech created the problem, let it also fix it without this miserable 24/hr discipline shit.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have known that on top of being crazy and stupid you were also a fatass.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Free, yes. Easy? No way. I have tried excercising everyday for about 1/2 hour, and only lost about 5 pounds. That payoff is like earning less than min wage. Plus, jogging can be boring as hell, and more interesting activities like basketball leave you sore and injured often. I still excecize, but not every day.

It is not easy, but it is simple. Figure out how many calories you burn each day, adjust your diet to consistently consume 500 less every day. You will lose a pound a week for however long you are interested (3500 calories = 1 pound). It worked for me, and everyone else with a backbone.

As far as eating less, your body knows very well that your intake is less than it wants, and not only cranks up the cravings to high heaven, but also lowers your metabalism to compensate, negating the effects. Being hungry all the time is miserable. It is comparable to having a slowly tighting vice on your arm. Constant discomfort.

Don't be such a fucking baby. Run a consistent daily caloric deficit and your stomach will adjust within a few weeks.

And, diet food tastes like cardboard. I would rather throw away the contents and eat the damned box! It tastes better.

Pick up an Indian cookbook.

Science/tech created the problem, let it also fix it without this miserable 24/hr discipline shit.

What a bunch of nonsense. You are addicted to food; you need to break your addiction. Put down the Twinkies and hook up with a support group like Weight Watchers.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[AJWM]

Exactly. Mod this guy up.

That said, just drinking a lot of water can help with the cravings. As for most of that so-called diet food, it's low-fat -- which means it hardly triggers that fat-related "I've eaten enough" sensor -- but not necessarily low-carb, so from the Atkins point of view, it's just about the worst stuff you could be eating.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[olman]

I got one practical piece of advice for you. Buy a bicycle. Far less boring than jogging plus you can actually go to places with it.

Won't do much for your calorie burn, but neither will jogging. At least you'll be a bit more healthy because you're getting some excercise, plus those muscles require more energy even at rest.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[SB5]

Our current selection of food is also better for us. It is like getting a 16 inch battleship shell when your body has evolved to survive on BB-gun pellets. Our current selection of food is of higher quality and just generally richer compared to what we evolved to survive on. Even if you are a Creationist, there is no way you can even try and compare our food now to food from 100-5000 years ago.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Joe Tie.]

I should preface this by saying I really don't know much more about this subject than I'd gained from a health class a few years back. But as I understand it, in terms of weight loss, the primary goal should be to increase muscle mass to keep that burning fat for you when you're not excercising. Rather than trying to burn off the fat just by expending energy. Jogging seems like it wouldn't do much since it involves a pretty small energy expenditure combined with not a huge potential for muscle gain since you've likley allready developed that from walking to a point where a half hour jog won't do very much.

I agree about health food though. I think one would be better off just eating fruits and vegtables than bothering with it.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Zebbers]

ummm ok

so...its not easy cause you dont want to exercise everyday and still want to be able to eat whatever you want... interesting....

dont blame us for your lack of willpower

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Tablizer]

It worked for me, and everyone else with a backbone.

Everybody is different. I have seen people who lost a lot of weight just by doing a *little* excercise, and the opposite. What works for you may not work for others.

Pick up an Indian cookbook.

I don't like indian food. Any food without a certain amount of fat and oils just plain tastes like cardboard. Spicy cardboard is not much an improvement.

Run a consistent daily caloric deficit and your stomach will adjust within a few weeks.

I have seen a lot of people who make this claim slip back into their old eating patterns. It is like those religious nuts who say, "If you pray for 5 years, your prayer will be answered." The smell of a BigMac (or your fav food) will NOT loose its allure power over time. I guarentee it. The longer you go without, the more tempting it will be.

What a bunch of nonsense. You are addicted to food;

I don't LIKE dealing with food. There is too much fussing and guilt associated with it. I would rather just inject myself with raw calories rather that futz with food issues.

Darwinian evolution made us ALL addicted to food.

Don't be such a fucking baby.

Maybe so. The cure is worse than the desease as far as delivering happiness. I would rather live for 60 years in comfort than 75 years with that horrid awful empty feeling of hunger. It is just as bad as constaint low-to-mid-level pain.

Would you rather live 60 years with sex or 75 without? That is the kind of choice being offered by the It-Only-Takes-Discipline jerks.

Eat and exert like one lives in a 3rd world country? That is "progress"? Fuckit!

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[abe ferlman]

jogging can be boring as hell, and more interesting activities like basketball leave you sore and injured often

This is why DDR is the best video game ever invented. It makes exercise fun, even when it's just you.

The only thing that could top it would be a hack & slash video game that worked both upper body and lower body, but I think we'll have to wait for holodeck technology for that one.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[elflord]

Free, yes. Easy? No way. I have tried excercising everyday for about 1/2 hour, and only lost about 5 pounds.

How long were you doing this for ? And at what burn rate ? you're not going to lose 5lb in one week. Sorry. On the other hand, 1lb a week is perfectly feasible, and if you keep that up for a year, you can lose a lot of weight. 40min/day at 750 cal/hr is enough to drop 1lb/week. If you're not doing 750cal/hr or close to it, you aren't working hard enough.

Plus, jogging can be boring as hell,

Whine whine whine. Find something that you enjoy. Running isn't that good for fatties anyway. Try a bicycle, an aerobics class or whatever suits you. I just sucked it up and used the stationary bike.

As far as eating less, your body knows very well that your intake is less than it wants, and not only cranks up the cravings to high heaven, but also lowers your metabalism to compensate, negating the effects.

You need to drop calories very low for this to happen. The leading cause of this sort of thing is diets that are overly restrictive. The trick is to maintain a modest caloric deficit and focus on the long term.

And, diet food tastes like cardboard.

Ouch! Dieting has absolutely nothing to do with eating so-called "diet food". A lot of diet food is garbage. It's more important to reduce caloric intake. This can be done by eating more food that is sparse in macronutrients and rich in dietary fibre, such as fruit and veggies. Fruit and veggies are the best "diet foods" out there.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[stefanlasiewski]

Another vote for bicycle.

Better for your knees & hips and you can actually get some upper body exercise.

Bikes let you see more of the world: you can go farther then jogging or walking, you see, hear & experience more of the world then you would ever see in a car (cars are very isolating).

Plus, a bike is pretty geeky. Alot of mechanical parts to tweak, tune your own gears, design your own lighting system, hook a generator up to your rims. Use your GPS, take a camera.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[drinkypoo]

If you're going hungry, you aren't doing the atkins diet right. The whole point is that you eat as much as you want, you just have to watch WHAT you eat.

Eating the usual glut of carbohydrates, as suggested by the FDA's food pyramid, is what goes against 4 billion years of evolution. Evolution has dramatically slowed (but not stopped, you can't stop ma nature) since we banded together to form agricultural societies. It takes a lot less effort to support your population with grain, but since when has the easiest path ever been the best?

There are some tasty diet foods, but you have to hunt hard for them. Low carbohydrate pastas have been getting better, the atkins pancake/waffle mix is great (Though timing is more critical even than normal waffles) and so on. Bread is still pretty shaky, and the bagels are like lender's (which aren't really bagels, they're abominations.)

The first nine months I was on the atkins diet were pretty much spent sitting on my ass in front of the computer. I lost 90 lbs eating mostly steak, fried chicken (sans breading), and salads with lots of bleu cheese dressing. If you don't like a lot of meat, then you will surely not like the atkins diet.

Now, if you want to just do something basic for your diet to help yourself, cut out as much of your carbohydrate intake as you can. That mostly means avoiding processed foods, which tend to have a bunch of sugar dumped in them. Avoid the sugar. Cut down on bread products. Drink diet soda, or *gasp* water. (We didn't evolve to drink soda, either.)

The bottom line does end up being that you should be exercising and building muscle which burns fat and tightens up your body; you should also be permanently altering your diet to something you can stick with which will cause you to lose weight.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[ryen]

I agree. I have 2 friends using DDR on playstation and the PC mod versions to lose weight and its worked out well for them. Losing weight while having fun doing it (and not to mention learning a few dance moves) is a win/win in my book.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Jesus 2.0]

It is going against 4 billion years of evolution that pushes us to hord food in preperation for lean days of no supply. Lean days are less likely in the modern world, but our body does not know that. Evolution is blind. The problem is not that evolution is blind. Evolution is not blind. Far from it. The problem is that evolution is slow. The additional problem is that evolution is irrelevant from the point of view of organisms that already exist - e.g. you and me. No matter whether evolution is blind or sightful, slow or fast, you and me personally are never going to evolve a mechanism for dealing with a lack of lean days any better than our current mechanisms.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[ragecgi]

I agree with the bike usage, as during my last tour with a late 99' .com I bought a "Recumbent" bike.
You know, the bike for those of us who want a place to set our nachos (tummy) while we watch our dvd collection and pedal away.

Kidding aside, I, like many of us here, are paid poorly to sit on our collective asses for 8+ hours a day, then go home to sit for another 6+ hours.

Fine, I'm cool wit dat. That's what I signed up for.
What I did not sign up for was my/our ever-expanding monster-truck tire slowly crushin my chest when I finaly get some sleep.

My question is, has any of us geeks ever actually succeeeded with any of these diets without having to DRASTICLY change your love for the crt-tanning sessions?

I for one would like to hear about it, (feel free to email me off list) as am wanting to start a "diet" of some sort, and am willing to be realistic about it.

Checking the Hackers and Atkins ones now....

I'm 5'6" @ 210lbs, so can Obi Wan even help me? ..or is my only hope to drasticly change the way I live/work?

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Anonymous Coward]

anecdotal evidence says you're right... at the risk of sounding like a total trekkie, I want the Klingon Workout from ST:TNG, but till then I can make due with DDR.
It's surprising, once you get to playing the bad japano-pop isn't even irritating anymore. At least for type-A personalities. Trying to increase your score and the difficulty is quite challenging.

Among the circle of folks who play with me regularly (about once a week, plus at home alone) we've lost a total of about 150lbs among the 5 of us, and are maintaining that after about 6 months...

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Demonix]

I second DDR...I bought it when the weather turned colder and I couldn't run outside anymore.

Of course, it helps if you don't have anyone living beneath you, damn it.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[dreadnougat]

Trans fatty acids were never in food before fairly recently. Saturated fats weren't nearly as common. Neither was processing, which depletes many of the needed nutrients out of food.

Our food has NOT gotten better, although our access to a reliable supply of food has, but that's not what our bodies are designed for. Those 16 inch battleship shells are way more than we can handle, they're making most people in north america overweight!

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[xmda]

I'll second that. Two years ago I started to ride my bicycle to work EVERY DAY. I'm not a overweight person, I'm quite thin, but I felt bad driving my car the 5km distance to work. Bad for the environment, expensive and bad for my health. Bad bad bad. After I had ben cycling for six months I went from 85 kg (I will *not* convert that to punds for you) to 80 kg. Again, I'm not overweight so I guess for an oveweight person this would affect that person even more.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[andyt]

The only thing that could top it would be a hack & slash video game that worked both upper body and lower body, but I think we'll have to wait for holodeck technology for that one.

I dunno about that. Samba De Amigo was a fun game for the Dreamcast that tracked hand movements to see where you were shaking a pair of maracas. Combine that with the fancy footwork of a DDR game and you've got yourself the ultimate body workout!

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Haikiba]

And you said you hated the songs. There's dang good techno to listen to, and the 45 pounds I've lost so far is a nice side effect.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[MKalus]

Free, yes. Easy? No way. I have tried excercising everyday for about 1/2 hour, and only lost about 5 pounds. That payoff is like earning less than min wage. Plus, jogging can be boring as hell, and more interesting activities like basketball leave you sore and injured often. I still excecize, but not every day.

Fat burning doesn't really start until around 30 minutes in the exercise, plus if you're still overeating you won't loose anything.

The goal would be not to go below 500kCal of your daily requirement.

As for the jogging: Use it as a meditative exercise, my long runs are 2 1/2 hours (iPods are great) and I use it to clear my mind.

As far as eating less, your body knows very well that your intake is less than it wants, and not only cranks up the cravings to high heaven, but also lowers your metabalism to compensate, negating the effects. Being hungry all the time is miserable. It is comparable to having a slowly tighting vice on your arm. Constant discomfort.

Instead of starving yourself change what you eat:

- Let go of refined foods.
- Let go of McDonalds and co, read the nutrionional guide and look at your caloric requirements and you'll realize just HOW much is in your double whopper with cheese.
- Instead of eating three meals a day break it up in more, smaller sizes.

I am hardly hungry, though I sometimes manage to crash my blood sugar when I am too deep in work, but in general I am constantly eating and snacking, just not the choclate bar that has almost 300kCal.

It is going against 4 billion years of evolution that pushes us to hord food in preperation for lean days of no supply. Lean days are less likely in the modern world, but our body does not know that. Evolution is blind.

True, but the problem also is that people just overeat instead of looking at what they really need.

I am ~6'2" and currently weight 192 pounds (this is really bad, weight is a bad indicator), I am at ~11% Body Fat (now that is what you really want to know) and most people think I am at most 170. The point I am trying to make here is: For my height and weight I need roughly 2000kCal a DAY to maintain my body (add any exercise on top of that).

Now look in your nutrional guide and tell me exactly how much was in your breakfast burrioto you just had? Not to forget your large coffee with a kg of sugar and the Dr. Pepper you have while sitting at the desk?

And, diet food tastes like cardboard. I would rather throw away the contents and eat the damned box! It tastes better.

My diet food consists of fresh veggies, lean protein and fruits. Occasionally I have a pop and other stuff, but it's in moderation. Tastes a hell of a lot better than "normal" food (whatever that is).

Science/tech created the problem, let it also fix it without this miserable 24/hr discipline shit.

Lyposucktion?

Seriously: You need some mental discipline, it won't work any other way, instead of whining start making changes to your life and to your diet, this is not a 5 minute thing, this is something for the lifetime.

Oh, and as for Atkins and stuff: Great if people loose fat on this, but how's your cardio? Just to be thin is by far not healthy.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[MKalus]

Better for your knees & hips and you can actually get some upper body exercise.

Huh? Since when do you need upper body strength on a bike?

I could bike just fine last year, but because I didn't have any upper body strength I couldn't run. Care to explain?

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[gfxguy]

I agree about health food though. I think one would be better off just eating fruits and vegtables than bothering with it.

You've just explained Atkins - except add meat and chicken and fish and other high protien food (the leaner the better), and you're right on.

The best weight loss program is going to be a mixture of burning fat through exercise, buring fat at rest by having larger muscles, and eating right.

This is a primary part of low-carb, high protien diets. If the energy is readily available in your bloodstream, then your muscles are going to burn that energy to operate.

Carbohydrates cause a huge (short lived) spike in the energy, and your muscles will use that and not the energy stored in your fat. By restricting carbohydrates, you will cause your body to go to it's reserves - your fat, to get the energy for your muscles, wether you are at work or rest.

When the low-carbers say that fat is OK, it's with the understanding that given a choice between more carbs or more fat, fat is preferable.

Other benefits of low-carb that I haven't heard people mention - fat is digested more slowly, you feel more satisfied after eating a meal high in fats than you do with a meal high in carbs. Your appetite will decrease over time.

You know how they say when you eat chinese food you are hungry an hour later? That's why - it's very high in carbs, especially the rice and noodles, but most of the sauces, too. When was the last time you ate steak and were hungy an hour later?

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[gfxguy]

Do you have a wife? Kids? I have hardly any time to work out, and NO, I don't watch TV. I didn't even get to catch the Simpsons halloween special (and that was a Sunday).

The other problem is that when I do get time - after the kids are in bed, it's not a very good time to work out unless I want to be up until midnight every night (when I get up at 5:30 every morning).

There's also the case that extremely overweight people, when they hit "bottom" and decide it's time to do something, are in no condition to work out, even walk for long distances.

Don't get me wrong, I advocate exercise as much as the next guy, and I work out at least three times a week, but I don't get all superior and condescending about it.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Anonymous Coward]

We did not evolve on the Atkins diet like so many people say. Large apes don't eat much meat. Insects are the main source of protein.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[OS24Ever]

Oh yes, buy a bike and become a target for the road raged idiots driving cars that think 'how dare you drive on my road!'

here in raleigh we've recently had a genius radio station solicit caller on how to mow down 'them damn bicyclers' and then when brought to task for doing so made a 'public service announcement' on how to do it.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Cutriss]

Andyt already mentioned Samba De Amigo. Not a bad game, though it only made it through two Japanese releases and one US release on the Dreamcast, and the maracas controllers are a bit hard to find, and pricey as well. You generally only want to stick with 1st party original Sega maracas, as the others fail pretty quickly.

In addition to Samba De Amigo, we also have the following upperbody/fullbody workout games:

Police 911
MoCap Boxing
ParaParaParadise
Dance Maniax/Dance Freaks
Tsurugi, in the US AKA "Blade Master"
Martial Beat (also by Konami, but has no KLOV listing - One arcade release, two PS2 releases - Check for it on GameFAQs)

All of these games are made by Konami. They also make a few motion-capture sports games which you can look at on KLOV, including a mo-cap soccer game and a mo-cap golf game. It's worth noting that Konami also owns a chain of fitness centers for adults and children in Japan.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[drinkypoo]

It's irrelevant what large apes eat. We're smaller, faster, and more nimble.

And protein is protein in much the same way as carbs are carbs. There are some differences between them, but they end up doing the same thing.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[stefanlasiewski]

Huh? Since when do you need upper body strength on a bike?

One of the best ways to prevent back, shoulder and arm strain is to build up those muscles.

Suprisingly, I use your arms and back muscles alot when bicycling: steering, going over bumps, etc. Your back can get really sore because it's the only thing holding up the rest of your body. It's easier to hold a good posture for a long period of time if those muscles are stronger.

Something that some motorcycle cops taught me. It's how they can sit upright on a motorcycle for hours at a time.

It also helps if you sit in an office chair all day.

All that pushing up and down on the handlebars builds some upper body strength.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[MKalus]

MMhh...

didn't work for me, guess I was too much in my aero bars ;)

M.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Suffering Bastard]

This article has been up far too long for me to expect anyone to read this, but I'm gonna have my say anyway since this is an important topic for me.

I'm one of the "lucky ones" whose metabolism allows me to be skinny without much effort. That is, I was that way in my 20s. Once I hit 30, however, I noticed my body going the way of my father...all the weight going straight to my belly. I was horrified at the thought of a big ol' pot belly, but I was also afraid of having to *gasp* actually diet or, even worse, exercise regularly!

Eventually, I started to do just that. Sit ups and push ups became a near daily regimen. I couldn't jog, though, because I have bad knees and hips, and I prefer on both personal principle and comfort not to go to a gym.

Then I discovered biking. If you're someone who is new to exercise, or are thinking about a nice, healthy way to give your body and mind a treat, get on a bike! Biking not only doesn't hurt my bad knees and hips, it actually strengthens them, which makes them hurt less. I also feel great after a bike ride, even (or especially!) if the ride itself was hard. Plus, as the parent noted, it has a nice geeky feel to it...especially if you wear your Homestar messenger bag on your back!

I live in Chicago and used to drive everywhere. Now I am an avid biker and public transporter, which makes me feel like I'm doing something good for the environment as well as keeping my sanity by not sitting in my car in mind-numbing traffic on the Kennedy or Addison Ave. before a Cubs game. I was surprised to learn that it takes just as long for me to ride my bike to work as it does to drive (about 2.5 miles, lucky me).

Plus, riding a bike gives you a much more intimate experience with the city you live in. I've had conversations with people, helped drunks out of the road, bought fresh fruit from street vendors, and have become far more familiar with the shops, not to mention the sights and smells (we're talking Milwaukee Ave. here...phew!). I feel much more in touch with my neighborhood than I ever did driving. This is one of the best benefits, in my opinion.

It's not always easy, especially in crappy weather, but it is very much worth the effort. Ride a bike! You won't regret it.

P.S. - Remember to always wear a helmet!

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[stefanlasiewski]

Well, it's not extreme muscle building.

I don't have popeye arms, but but my shoulders and arms went from average to rock hard after 2.5 months of bike commuting to my new job (30 minutes each way, where my old job was about 5 minutes of riding, a 40 minute train ride and another 10 minutes of riding).

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[stonewolf]

Amen brother....

In my life I have worn out 2 excercise bicycles, a tread mill, a nordic track, a cross coutry bicycle, and I have a nice weight rack in my living room. Hours and hours of boaring dreadful excercise tied to years of eating the low fat, high carbohydrate diet my Dr. perscribed... What did it get me? High blood pressure, sky high cholesteral, and 120 lbs over weigth, and eventually type 2 diabetes.

I started on a low carb diet when I was diagnosed as a "pre-diabetic". Six months on a low carb diet and my cholesteral was down below normal, I had lost 30 pounds, and my blood pressure was normal. I eventually lost all the weight. I have 3 Drs who have told me that the low card diet delayed the onset of full blown type 2 diabetes by at least 4 years.

When you lose control of your blood sugar the low carb diets stops working. My weight went up. I got on medication to control the blood sugar, and the weight went down. My Drs fully support my staying on a low carb diet.

BTW, low card does not imply high fat or low fiber. I eat what my ancestors (mostly northern European) ate and I do fine with it.

I went through all of this while excercising in Dr approved ways and Dr approved amounts. I'm sure the excercise is important, very important. But, the diet is as important, IMHO more important. A diet that doesn't suit *you* will kill you. We are all individuals.

I did finally find a form of excercise that is not just painfully boring and a group of people who don't brow beat you for not being a perfect physical specimen. An excercise experience unlike anything I have ever encountered in any setting at any time in my life.

Shaolin-Do http://www.shaolin-do.com/

Mentally and physically challenging. Oddly enough, where I live most of the students are geeks. Tons of computer people, mathematicians, engineers, and so on. And, they don't tolerate bullies.

Stonewolf

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[SB5]

I still disagree. I would venture to say that an apple pie made today would be far more rich in calories and various molecules needed by the body than say an apple pie made 300 years ago.

Yes, our bodies are designed to go through long periods of food withdrawl but we still eat food that is richer than the food we slowly evolved to eat. Essentially we are large primates, we evolved to subsist off of fruits, berries, plants, animals, just about anything that was edible. 3000 years ago our food was poor in quality, we made up for it by eating large amounts of it. Isn't the daily recommended calorie intake 2000-3500 calories? We can easily get 2000 calories from two meals or even one large meal. You can blame it on transfatty acids, salt, sugar, carbohydrates, proteins, diet soda, whatever, my point is that our food has a higher concentration of these things than normal. Our chickens are breed for one thing, consumption, they are taken care of better than chickens from 500 years ago, the same goes with cows, other animals and our crops. Take a look at all the giant vegetable/fruit contests, we are constantly making larger foods because of our sheer knowledge of how to get food to grow better. 500 years ago you couldn't buy fertilizer that listed its phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium contents or even know what they did!

Today I can safely say that my food produced from my garden is going to be richer than some farmer from 3000 years ago.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, who modded this "troll" and why? It is such a vague, unhelpful word.

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[Slime-dogg]

heh... Beer was around back then. That's the only dietary supplement that I require. :-)

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[dreadnougat]

The artificial fats and additives are quite bad for us. (Even those arrowroot crackers we feed children have high amounts of TFA's, as in around a gram per cracker!) You don't want to know the chemical changes oils go through after sitting in a deep fryer all day. Which is usually what it does. In most places they simply add more oil to compensate for the stuff that comes off on the food.

In addition to that, genetically modified foods (and foods that are created through breeding programs) that are bigger are not any healthier for us. They have more of some nutrients, but they also have less of other, equally important nutrients, according to a recent-ish study quoted in the Globe and Mail (I think). They are engineered to be bought, not to make people healthy.

"Today I can safely say that my food produced from my garden is going to be richer than some farmer from 3000 years ago."

Artificial fertilizers don't make it healthier. What's healthy for a carrot is not necessarily healthy for you. It *might* be richer than what they were getting before - but that's not necessarily a good thing. We were designed for what we were doing, not what we *are* doing. So yes, they had to work harder than we do, but that's why we're getting fat (well, not me but society as a whole) and dieing of things that never used to be a problem. Cancer never used to be common, and that's not just because we're living longer. Take a look at the spike in the number of incidences over the last century (not necessarily fatal cases, but incedences, as new therapies make you live where you would have died has nothing to do with diet). People are getting it when they're younger. (Last minute change: oops, I see out of your garden, so some of that doesn't apply, but then most people don't eat out of their own gardens, and they almost never eat fresh veggies (although they may think it's fresh... but ten or more days is not fresh, despite the sign).

This generation will be the first generation to have a problem with teens and twentysomethings getting heart disease.

OTOH, we are certainly able to get food that is better for us than the food used to be (I had originally meant what the average person is at all likely to eat). But most people have no idea what is good for them. I'd be willing to bet that the average person thinks a bagel is healthy, when even a whole wheat bagel will spike your bloodsugar way higher and faster than anything healthy would. People don't know it's not just sugar that's causing diabetes (well it's all glucose eventually that causes it, but you know what I mean), it's anything with a high glycemic index that causes it. Cavemen would've have lasted long with diabetes... but they would just about never get it, because they didn't even have the option.

Et cetera.

I don't eat perfect, but I take suppliments that make up for it and then some. They've made a huge difference in just about all aspects of my life. Of course the average person thinks that Centrum is representative of the quality of all suppliments (which for some bizarre reason don't even have to contain as much of any nutrient as they say they do, and only a small percentage of brands follow the pharmaceutical (sp?) guidelines), and just think they're quakery. But I'm rambling.

Hopefully that made some semblence of sense :)

Re:IT AINT FUCKEN EASY!

[DummyPlug]

I know it's not what you meant by "hack & slash video game", but for something a little more "interesting" then mock dancing how 'bout something similar the old DragonQuest/Space Ace arcade games?

They used 4 directions and an attack button, all easily reproduce on the dance pad.

This could be a nice baby step toward that full immersion thing.

Moo.

[dexter riley]

JELL-O = gelatin = rendered animals. So really, all JELL-O is meat JELL-O.

Now, meat flavored JELL-O, that would be gross.

Personally, I prefer electrophoresis grade agarose; it's very tasty.

proud to be a fat hacker

[Anonymous Coward]

just give me BBQ pork, potato salad, corn on the cob, and LOTS of cold beer...

Shiny happy people!

[fuqqer]

Hey,
If people wanna kill themselves in order to make sure they look good, let them do so. I'm all for more hot chix...-oh wait, this is about hackers losing weight, never mind that last part.

Here's my reason for endorsing the atkins diet. Women are using it to keep themselves slim and trim and are killing themselves in the process. That means if I'm dating one, she'll die before she starts to get bag ugly and I can go pickup a replacement...-oh wait, I'm posting on slashdot, I must not have a girlfriend and am most likely never to find one.

I've ended my sarcasm, let the hackers have their cake and eat it too! Stop berating people and telling them that they're stupid for their choice of food. He'll we have enough of that over OS choices.

In Soviet Slashdot, the non-sig posts you!

The Omega Diet

[MisanthropicProggram]

Artemis P. Simopoulis, MD, and Jo Robinson. (C)1999

A little dated with the research but pretty good recipes! Deserts too!

I wish there were more studies on the Omega-3 fatty acids. Especially, if they find out that they really work because I've been spending a fortune on Omega-3 Eggs, Omega-3 this, Omega-3 that ....

Re:The Omega Diet

[Mrstupid7]

Hemp seed is lovely for those fatty acids. http://www.hempfood.com/IHA/iha03101.html

Re:The Omega Diet

[geoffspear]

MEDLINE returns 1642 articles matching the heading "Fatty Acids, Omega-3" since 1996. How many more studies do you need?

Overclocking is a bad metaphor.

[thatguywhoiam]

A closer idea would be an Undocumented System Feature.

And it does work, I can attest myself.

The feature in question is a metabolic state called Ketosis, which burns body fat. You hold about 2 days worth of carbohydrates in your system; if you deprive yourself of sugars and carbs for that amount of time, then ketosis kicks in. Its often confused with ketoacidosis (SP?) which is a dangerous diabetic state.

Short-term (6 months or less) research shows that this method of weight loss is healthy, in that period of time. Triglycerides improve, and HDL cholesterol levels generally improve. Long-term effects have still not been researched to my knowledge, which is odd considering how old this approach is.

The first 'phase' of Atkins is usually a 2-week period, no more than 20 grams of carbs/day. You can safely do it for longer but it gets very boring. After 2 weeks they basically tell you to start adding carbs back, 5 grams a week, until you stop losing weight. Then you know how many carbs you can consume before the pounds start coming back. That's pretty much the whole Atkins approach.

So if you want to lost weight fast, its a pretty easy way to do it. I do agree that many of the beneficial effects of an Atkins diet are just linked to watching what you eat very carefully - to this I say, So What, it works. It's fairly easy to stick to as you get to eat all sorts of stuff you wouldn't normally: meat, cheese, nuts, etc. Also, the diet works a lot better for guys than girls - its basically twice as effective.

Where it gets controversial if you ask me is as a long-term approach. Even in the final phase of Atkins you are still probably only eating 60 grams of carbs/day, and that is with exercise... which is still way under what the FDA or whatever tells you is a normal daily intake.

In the end its an interesting dietary trick but probably not something you'd want to do for years until further studies have been done.

also there is ALA/R-ALA

[AssFace]

If you want the effects of a low carb diet, but you still want to eat carbs.
Or if you want a cheat meal, but don't want all the carbs from it - you can take in ALA.

ALA will help shuttle the glucose out of your sytem faster - if you workout beforehand, then your muscles are more insulin sensitive anyway, so the ALA will help even more.
The result of that will be your muscles getting more of it and your fat getting less.
It also clears the blood of it faster, meaning that you don't get elevated levels of insulin which are the main reason that a high carb diet can be bad for you.

ALA in itself is also the best anti-oxidant available. The R isomer is more effective, but it is hard to produce and it isn't stable under normal heat (anything above about 78 degrees F).
Once the isomer heats up, it will then revert to the racemic (mixed right and left) version of ALA - so you essentially pay a lot of the R and then can easily have it revert back to the regular kind.

Good stuff if you are willing to shell out the bucks and trust who makes/distributes it.

Low-carb experience

[UtilityFog]

I started trying this a year and a half ago, and
wrote the following after the first few months.
All remarks are still valid:

Alimentary, My Dear Watson

While I was on vacation in early July, I happened to read the NYTimes
magazine article by Gary Taubes which opened my eyes to an extent.
The import of the article was that modern dietary conventional wisdom
has it pretty much backwards, and that eating a low-fat diet is actually
the cause of the current obesity epidemic and a lot of heart disease
and diabetes.

Getting back home and doing a flurry of research revealed that Taubes
had published a similar article in in Science about a year ago.
What he documents is that the notion that fat is bad for you is
a political, not a scientific, result, and that the actual studies
don't show it at all. Since the NIH and FDA got the bee in their
bonnet about fat, they've spent more than a billion dollars trying
to prove it, and failed.

Consider an "epidemiological" study of cars. Let's assume that the
researchers believe that engine oil is a prime cause of engine trouble.
You could quite easily take a sample that showed that there was a
strong positive correlation between cars that dripped oil and ones
that broke down. Then you could just as correctly show that you
could prevent oil dripping by not putting any oil in at all.
Bingo! The "proof" of your presumed conclusion. That's about how
rigorous the basis for the antifat doctrine is.

The reality is much more complex. In fact, the famous Boehringer
Mannheim metabolic pathways chart covers an entire wall in finely
detailed arrows and chemical formulae. But a very simplified version
goes something like this: There are three basic classes of food,
called the macronutrients; they are proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
Proteins and fats are essential for human life; carbohydrates are not.
Carbohydrates are all converted to glucose in your bloodstream. The
more you eat, the more glucose. The body reacts to glucose in the
blood with insulin, which acts to cause cells to burn glucose for
energy and convert it to fat to be stored.

A whole raft of hormonal imbalances can result when insulin is
constantly overproduced. There seems to be some general mechanism
that tries to balance anabolic and catabolic hormones. Insulin
is anabolic. Too much of it for too long and the body will either
overproduce catabolic hormones or underproduce the other anabolic
ones.

The upshot of long-term carbohydrate consumption is a phenomenon known
as "Syndrome X", so named by Gerald Reaven, MD, professor of medicine
at Stanford. It's a cluster of symptoms that tend to occur together,
including high blood pressure, high serum triglycerides, decreased HDL,
and obesity, and marks a risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Well, go to any grocery store and look what you'll find in the
so-called "heart-healthy", low-fat foods: carbohydrates. Loads
of them. Remember, it doesn't matter whether it's sugar or starch,
honey or whole wheat, it's all glucose to your bloodstream.

So it would seem that the arrogance and ignorance of the high
priesthood of health in this country has contributed to, if not
indeed largely caused, the current (real, well-documented) epidemic
and of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Oh, yes, one other thing for those of you who are into life extension
and know about the caloric restriction results -- one of the main
physiological markers for caloric restriction is low insulin.

Well, who can believe that? I did a bunch of research, and discovered
that there are more different opinions among dietary advisors than
among economists. The only thing that *everybody* agreed on was that
olive oil was good for you, and trans-fatty acids (margarine) was bad.

One of the more interesting subfields I ran across was the paleolithic
diet. The id

Cannot eat meat alone

[atomico]

Eating a steak without having a nice piece of bread and a good glass of red wine at your side?

Good Lord, only true barbarians would attempt such a sin against centuries-old customs and traditions!

Don't try that at this side of the Ocean, children.

Atkin's weight-loss vs. Atkin's weight maintenance

[Devlin-du-GEnie]

I was 180 lb at the end of 2002. I was 163 lb and holding by the end of March thanks to an Atkins-like diet plan and continuing my normal exercise routine.

The weight-loss phase of Atkins-like diets is quite different from the maintenance phase. Atkins and others don't advocate steak, bacon, and cheese for a lifetime.

After you reach your target, healthy weight, you gradually add more whole grains, vegetables, and fruits and cut back on protein. You still avoid simple sugars and high glycemic-index carbohydrates, though. That's the hardest part for me. I love good crusty white bread and desserts.

The atkins dangers are all psychological

[arete]

From what I've heard, the atkins dangers are all psychological.

In general, the Atkins diet is fairly moderate. But it _STARTS_ with being very aggressive in the beginning. The largest danger, as I understand it, is that you'll start it and, being someone prone to doing things to excess, will do the Atkins diet to excess because it works in the beginning.

Keeping that going for a significant period is certainly bad, which is why Atkins doesn't recommend you do it.

Faith for fat people.

[DwarfGoanna]

The single most striking thing about the Atkins Diet has to be the defensiveness of it's adherents. Diet is something of an interest to me, and talking with some of these Atkins folks has been pretty illuminating. My conclusion is that many people would undergo radiation poisoning to lose weight, if possible (and effective), only to tell you how the health risks involved were "questionable". Muck up your own metabolism all you want. But when something this sketchy gets saturated in the American mindshare as "healthy", I think it shows we have a long way to go before our society uses critical thinking in any meaningful way.

Re:You'll know the hacker's diet has gone mainstre

[Cpt_Kirks]

It's called Diet Mountain Dew. I had a Diet Code Red with my chicken for lunch. Yum, the fake cherry hides the aspartane after taste pretty good.

An actual tip

[thatguywhoiam]

The Atkins diet is really very convenient for hackers. All you have to do is order your standard pepperoni pizza, and then throw away everything below the pepperoni.

Heh.. that's not far off.. but for those of you who want to do Atkins and get stuck in awkward pizza-ordering social situations, I have two words for you:

chicken wings

Not breaded, not honey-garlic, but regular chicken wings will not 'knock you off' ketosis, and you can still eat with your pals.

Re:An actual tip

[`Sean]

Chicken wings rule. Hot sauce is usually zero carb unless they add a lot of garbage to it. And most chain pizza joints use so little sauce you can eat everything but the crust and still be safe.

Re:An actual tip

[Stone316]

Deep fried or baked? Any diff? Personally I usually deep-fry mine.. mmmmmmm wings...

Re:An actual tip

[Anonymous Coward]

Deep fried is OK (not preferred), but breaded is not.

Re:An actual tip

[NoData]

That reminds me...Have you seen the latest TV ad campaign from KFC? They're now billing their fried chicken as health food for the weight conscious. "Honey, you know how we talked about eating better?" begins one ad. I nearly fell out of my chair. Talk about swinging the hype pendulum too far the other direction. (OK, nobody talks about a hype pendulum, I made that up, but still...)

Re:An actual tip

[drinkypoo]

Expensive bleu cheese dressing, IE the real stuff and not anything from kraft, is generally low-to-no carb. Hot wings are legit unless drenched in sauce. Hot wings dipped in bleu cheese dressing are fucking heavenly, but just loaded with calories from fat... which is totally irrelevant on atkins. In fact, if you're low on energy, they can give you a nice long-term pick me up because what do you run on when you're on atkins? DUN DUN DUN that's right it's FAT! (insert applause from the audience here)

Re:An actual tip

[`Sean]

I second bleu cheese dressing. That, and Caesar dressing. Just make sure to read the labels. As stated above, cheap dressings are no go. The expensive ones are all low or no carb.

Re:An actual tip

[dreadnougat]

Anything from KFC isn't healthy... deep fried foods are full of trans fat and other horrible, unnatural things.

There's far more to health than weight.

Re:An actual tip

[Some Bitch]

For eating at home you can use an omelette as the base for a pizza. Just make sure your tomato sauce and toppings are low carb and you're sorted :)

Obviously you need to use a knife and fork but hey, nothing's perfect.

I went from a size 28(UK) to a 16 on Atkins, bacon and eggs for breakfast and I look fab again \o/

Re:An actual tip

[Theaetetus]

Great! Now, when I eat a 12-piece bucket of fried chicken, and wash it down with a six-pack of that Michelob Ultra low-carb beer, I'm being healthy! [/sarcasm]

I saw the commercial for the first time last night. That's just freakin' insane.

-T

Re:An actual tip

[Noren]

I think they decided that all the extra airtime on news/satire shows and additional mentions on forums such as this was worth lying about their product. I'm certain they were expecting it.

After all, the only bad publicity is no publicity, right?

Y'know...

[Zegnar]

A salad for lunch and regular excercise go a lot further than most diets :) And if the excercise is various types of fighting (e.g. Fencing etc) then its a lot more fun than starving yourself too.

new name

[Tablizer]

Hackins diet

i prefer

[Zebbers]

to exercise

Oddly enough...

[greg_barton]

...I started on a low-carb two days before the Salon article was published. Results so far: 5 pounds in one week.

I've lost 80 pounds before on similar, not so drastic diets. (Similar to the Zone.) I gained 60 back, though. I just couldn't sustain the weight loss when I had no time to exercize.

It seems that, on any other nutrition scheme, unless I exercize hard for at least an hour per day, I gain weight. I haven't had much time to test it, but it seems that so far on a low-carb diet that is not the case.

not quite

[thatguywhoiam]

Eat less, excercise more. It's free and easy. It's covered under the GNU diet license so feel free to share with other fatties.

No. That is the hardest diet ever.

As Steve Martin once quipped, "I'd do anything to look beautiful - except eat right and exercise more."

Re:not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

"quipped" isnt even a word. Quit making crap up, moron.

Re:not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, are you a fucking moron or what?

Re:not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

I'm not fond of atkins

[snipersock]

(first post)
I'm a geek of coffee, i work at starbucks. Try not to hold that against me while reading this post. We have certain regulars that come in and specifically order atkins style drinks and have been doing so exclusively for the past 6 months. I can easily say that the only constant is they fact that they have been gaining weight. This isn't just one or two, this is 14 off the top of my head. Maybe its just me but consuming lard doesn't seem like a healthy choice.
~ Nick

Re:I'm not fond of atkins

[AJWM]

What the hell is an "atkins style drink" at Starbucks?

Atkins discourages caffeine intake. I can't think of anything Starbucks serves, beyond plain water (if you can even get that), that Atkins promotes.

Always easy in the beginning

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats on the good work so far. I only give you this advice so you don't get disappointed. All diets are easy in the beginning. I was 50 pounds overweight. To stay 50 pounds overweight I had to do everything wrong. Every meal had to be the worst thing I could choose. I have no doubt Atkins will work for you, but it will get harder. If you prepare now mentally you will be okay. All fitness plans have plateaus you will have to break through. You will judge how easy a diet is by the last 15 pounds, not the first. Good luck in your quest.

One word that kill Atkins for me.

[jrwillis]

Guinness

Re:One word that kill Atkins for me.

[Xeger]

Surprisingly enough, Guinness is one of the best low-carb beers to drink. The South Beach diet, a gentler less radical alternative to Atkins, recommends that you drink Guinness whenever you want a beer.

So, next time you want to indulge in a pint of the black stuff, you can do so happily...just as long as it's just one or two pints. Any more than that, and you should plan on drinking your dinner. :)

Re:One word that kill Atkins for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I checked with Guinness about that one - it's not true, it has about the same number of carbs as most beers.

Re:One word that kill Atkins for me.

[hughk]

Really? A short holiday in Dublin was reflected immediately in my waist-line. I was more or less drinking my dinner too!!!

Guniness used to be given to people in Ireland to bulk them up for operations in earlier times. I couldn't describe it as low carb!!!

Re:One word that kill Atkins for me.

[Xeger]

Call them back and ask about the glycemic index of Guinness. The glycemic index is a measure of the net effect of the sugars and carbs found in a given food on your metabolism. The higher a food's glycemic index number, the more readily your body assimilates the calories from carbohydrates contained in the food, and the more it tends to make you crave more food.

Sugar isn't all that bad for you, calorie-wise. The problem is that sugar -- and other substances with a high glycemic index -- cause you to become hungrier, which makes you eat more overall.

I'm no expert in this stuff -- it's all hearsay from my three roommates, who are on the South Beach diet and have lost a total of 180 lbs between them so far.

I lost my own weight -- almost 120 lbs of it -- using The Hacker's Diet, back in 1999 before it was trendy. Simply counting calories and getting plenty of exercise seemed to work fine for me. But my roommates have been losing weight faster than I ever did, and their figures have been improving at a rate that outstrips their weight loss (i.e. they seem to be losing fat without losing so much muscle).

Another Geek Success...

[mythosaz]

I'm on month number four of my Atkins diet, and I've been averaging 3.06 pounds a week. I've never been a man who eats breakfast, and I enjoy ceasar salads, so it's been pretty easy for me to both eat the foods I'm supposed to and not load myself up with all the grease and cholesterol that people complain about.

Chicken breasts with a nice low-carb sauce, green beans and a salad makes a dinner that fits Atkins' carb rules, is low calore too, AND is healthy in almost every other "traditional" regard.

I used to track my eating religiously using Fitday.

http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/PublicJournals.html ?O wner=mythosaz

Fitday is a fantastic dieter's resource, and in the link abvove, if you scroll back to the first couple months of my diet you can see what I ate.

Plain and Simple

[Infernon]

Diets don't work without exercise. Plain and simple. There's really nothing else to be said about it. Man was not meant to be stationary as much as we are. We're animals and we need to run, lift, swim, etc. to stay healthy. The problem with most people is that they're lazy and undisciplined. Others complain that they don't have enough time. Who can't spare 20 minutes a day for a jog? Seriously...
I saw another post about not eating until you're stuffed which is dead on. I recall a teaching (ancient Chinese proverb?) that goes something like, "80 percent of what you eat feeds yourself and the other 20 percent feeds the doctor."
If you must eat fatty foods, have them in the morning when you're metabolism is working overtime. Stay away from sugar (I know, I know...) and drink plent of water. Vitamins too.
Most importantly, find something that you enjoy. It's really not that hard.

Losing Weight != In Shape != Healthy

[Spl0it]

Losing weight is great, but if you've been lazy and un-active to gain those 50-100-150-200lbs then your extremely out of shape, and not healthy. Losing that weight is great for your body, especially your heart, but if you don't go to the gym or play sports regularly then losing that weight will only change your image not the health damage you may have incurred from gaining the losing a significant amount of weight. Remember losing weight is only 75% of the battle, now that you don't weigh so much and you are able to 'run' you should or else your not 'back' in shape, your just skinner. Once your back in shape you will be able to enjoy more sports and other various activities which will then re-shape your lifestyle to include activities that will help you keep that weight off for the rest of your life.

squash is a game of skill

[blonde rser]

I find that the best squash players I know (guys who are usually at the top of ladders) don't use a lot of energy when playing. One of them I would even call over weight. The reason is that squash gives a major advantage to the player with strong aim and strategy and no amount of speed or running will overcome that. I love squash as a game but a work out it often isn't. If you want a game that is all about stamina and speed check out raquetball. Strong squash players don't use fast reflexes that often either. They know where the ball is going long before it gets there and have thought out their swing when it does.

Just a gratuitous squash rant

Re:squash is a game of skill

[Anonymous Coward]

just to add my two cents...

when I played a fair amout of racquetball in college, when I played against people at my skill level (novice) I found that we were both running around a lot. When I watched some of my friends who were decent tennis players in high school, it looked like they weren't exerting much effort. It was more about ball placement.

I enjoyed the unstructured game better.

Cyclic Ketogenic Diet (CKD)

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been on the CKD diet for about 3 months now. The CKD's goal is to get your body to preferentially burn fat through ketosis. It involves a very low carb diet Sun - Friday afternoon, and then on Friday evening and all day Saturday for about 32 hours, you pig out on carbs.

While Atkins was made for those that are mostly sedentary, and you will catabolize muscle on Atkins, the CKD diet is meant to be protein sparing for those that are very active.

The weekly carb loading phase is meant to put glycogen back into your muscles so you actually have enough energy to work hard. Also, under ketosis, anerobic exercise will catabolize muscle for fuel and the lactic acid build-up is also detremental.

It's my first attempt at cycling with it for a couple of months. I started off at 6 foot and 185 pounds. I'm now down to 175 pounds and I've never been this cut. From body fat samples, almost almost all ten of those pounds I lost was pure fat, very little muscle was lost in the process.

I eat 200 grams of protein a day (based on body weight), and the rest of my 2000 calories in the day comes from fat, with less than 30 grams of net carbs a day. Over the Friday and Saturday refeed, I eat about 12,000 Calories with 80% coming from carbs, like pasta, bread, and rice or even Krispy Kreme donuts and pizza.

This isn't something that people stay on for years though. From most people's experience, it is a way to get a little more cut, drop maybe 10-15 pounds over a few months (the weight loss is slow, for me is about 1/2 to 3/4 a pound a week). Once you reach your target body fat percent or you have been on it too long, you stop. It's something you do in the spring to get ready for summer abs.

However, most that use it are very active and they don't want to lose very hard earned muscle.

Re:Cyclic Ketogenic Diet (CKD)

[Anonymous Coward]

That should read up to about 12,000 Calories in the previous post, and I should probably also tell you my workout schedule.

I do weight training about 4 to 5 times a week, depending on what routine I am currently cycling through. On most days, except Saturday, I do cardio. I was doing high intensity interval training almost daily for about 13 minutes, but I read that that can interfere with a ketosis-based diet, so I have gone back to only doing low-intensity cardio on mostly off days (3 times a week, never Saturday).

My diet

[Anonymous Coward]

I eat lots of veggies and a little bit of meat with every meal and workout everyday. I avoid coke, cookies, donuts, cakes and candy. And I've lost 50 pounds since I changed from doing the complete opposite of this new regiment. I don't need some fad diet nor does anyone. All you need to do is eat a balanced diet and work out; Something doctors have been saying for years.

Gyms with Televisions and Muzak

[billstewart]

The gym I go to has treadmills, stairmashers, oval running things, etc. in a big room with four big televisions (sound off, broadcasts on different FM radio channels, captions on), so if you want to watch TV to keep your mind off how boring running is or distract the internal monkey-chatter with external monkey-chatter, you can. It also has Muzak playing the whole time, usually whatever variant on bouncy Brittany Spears pop is current this 15 minutes. I find that if I want to let the music drive my timing, it's close enough, and if I want to ignore it, I can. Exercise bikes are much more mindnumbing for me than running, because I have to bike 2-3 times as long to get the equivalent calorie load (one advantage to being heavy is that you burn calories faster when running :-). On the other hand, weightlifting is never boring.

The gym is also always close to the right temperature, not dark, and not raining. It doesn't have the reality level of going out running, but it works. Back when I commuted by train, I picked a gym that was next to the train station, so it was easy to make a habit of stopping in there 3-4 days a week. Now that I'm usually telecommuting or going to a closer office, I unfortunately didn't get back in the habit after the last time I messed up my knee.

Geek weight loss

[dark&stormynight]

Sean wrote: " I've personally lost a hundred pounds so far...". So that means you weight around 65 lbs now?

Works for many of my friends

[billstewart]

Many of my friends have tried the Atkins diet, and have had good results with weight loss, and excellent results with overall energy levels. It doesn't work for everybody, but the people who like it seem to really really like it.

I'm a vegetarian, and a diet of eggs and cheese is MUCH more annoying than a diet of meat, eggs, and cheese :-) OK, you can have some vegetables, so that lets you vary the diet between cheese&broccoli omelettes, crustless broccoli quiche, and broccoli with hollandaise sauce, so you can actually last 2-3 days before going stark raving bonkers, but basically the concept just doesn't work.

How about one with computers?

[John Jorsett]

The gym I go to has treadmills, stairmashers, oval running things, etc. in a big room with four big televisions (sound off, broadcasts on different FM radio channels, captions on), so if you want to watch TV to keep your mind off how boring running is or distract the internal monkey-chatter with external monkey-chatter, you can.

I'd find a computer with a broadband connection infinitely more distracting than television. I can get so wrapped up in web surfing that hours can go by.

Hey, how'd it get dark outside?

OO Version of Hackers Diet?

[cmacb]

Weird. I don't think I've ever heard of the Hackers Diet even though it seems to have been around quite a while.

I'm puzzled by the page that has all the Excel spreadsheets where Walker complains about all the changes forced on it by new versions of Excel. Seems like a perfect candidate for an Open Office version. Anyone ever put such a thing together?

Why are computer geeks skinny, but hackers fat?

[confused philosopher]

Sorry, I didn't think of a punch line. Maybe you can help?

"It Doesn't Work..."

[whiskeypete]

It used to crack me up when I was on the Atkins Diet. People would come up to me and say "Wow, you've lost weight. How did you do it."

When I told them that I was on the Atkins plan, the first response was always the same:

"Oh, that doesn't work."

But really...

[CoderByBirth]

...how hard is this anyway? There are a zillion weird diets like this:
Only eat fruit.
Only eat bacon.
Only eat eggs.

You've probably heard this before, but here goes:
Eat food that is low on fast carbs. This means vegetables, no refined grain products and definitely no sugar.
Eat meat which is low on saturated fats. This means fish and fat fish such as salmon, sea-food and other lean meats.

Excercise daily.

Now, I may not exactly follow these instructions
down to the last word myself, but I try to.

Think about it; the human species as a whole has probably evolved on a low-carb, low-fat diet and lots of movement.
They didn't eat raw sugar 10 000 years ago, which is yesterday on an evolutionary timescale.
And they sure as hell didn't have a guy named Atkins tell them to eat bacon and eggs three times a day.

I call bullshit on this being a 'hackers diet'.
I'm a hacker, and to me this diet is like fixing a bug (ie. being fat) while having no understanding of the entire system (ie. the human body).

Re:But really...

[emcdermid]

What you've just described is the same thing Atkins does.

Contrary to popular belief and some of the comments here, he doesn't tell people to go out and start wolfing down bacon, eggs, and red meat while they loll about on the couch. In fact, he strongly recommends fish and non-saturated fats in addition to (low carbohydrate density) veggies and exercise.

Bacon, eggs, and red meat are dietary options, not requirements, and he cautions about overdoing them.

Actually not....

[coyote-san]

The Atkins diet has some additional restrictions, with two big ones being eliminating both caffeine and aspertame. So no diet Mt. Dew, if you strictly follow the diet.

Re:Actually not....

[GlassUser]

Diet RC Cola is half way there. It's made with Splenda, so it tastes about the same as regular (which I still don't have on my favorites list, but oh well). Now we just need to ditch the caffiene.

Re:Actually not....

[abischof]

Diet Rite -- made by the same company as Diet RC -- has no caffeine. Really, Diet RC and Diet Rite are just about the same product except that Diet Rite has no caffeine :).

Re:Actually not....

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliminating aspartame is not part of the Atkins Diet.

Re:Actually not....

[brad3378]

Dr Atkins was not a fan of Aspertame - and I can see why - when I started drinking diet pop with it, my weight loss hit a brick wall -

Lost 50 lbs last summer on Atkins and it's been off a year

** Knock on wood **

Re:Actually not....

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people do "hit a wall with it." But I have to wonder whether that's "the wall" that everyone hits when losing weight. I'm not defending aspartame (or artifical sweetners in general), but my experience is that I hit a wall with Atkins (despite some excellent weight loss) and it wasn't anything to do with aspartame... it was almost like my body stopped losing weight for a while, had a bit of a rest and then got back to it.

Re:Actually not....

[jafuser]

I did the same thing. It's not much unlike the temperature curve of a material which is in phase transition.

If you stick with it, eventually you get through it; although it can get quite discouraging in the meantime.

Re:Actually not....

[coyote-san]

Finally had the time to look up the specific citation....

DANDR, page 189.

"Avoid aspartame. Although the cause is as yet unknown, clinical observations show that certain individuals find weight loss slows with excessive intake of aspartame, the artificial sweetener sold as NutraSweet and Equal."

Page 230.

"12. Treat aspartame (NutraSweet or Equal) with caution. Avoid when possible. This includes products sweetened with this ingredient, such as diet sodas and diet Jell-O. Check labels on other products that purport to be low or controlled carb."

*Tolerable* low calorie diets are fine

[billstewart]

A low calorie diet that you don't stick to because it's too annoying and you feel hungry all the time isn't successful and stop doing it. On the other hand, the friends of mine who've tried Atkins and liked it say that it's a diet they can stick to for long enough to lose weight. So even if the primary reason for the weight loss is the lower calories, the ketosis or insulin effects may be helping reduce the feeling of hunger.

Interesting

[jrwillis]

I had always assumed that Guinness was pretty high in carbs. Nice to know...

Really broken analogy

[coyote-san]

That's a really broken analogy - one of the cornerstones of the Atkins diet is that you need to do regular exercise. You aren't going to save money by dropping your gym membership - if anything you're going to spend more money on athletic equipment and membership fees.

Beyond that, there's been a number of studies that say ALL diets cause loss of muscle mass if you don't exercise... a loss which can usually be stopped by regular exercise.

i'm a vegetarian

[sirReal.83.]

...you insensitive clod!

if you are really serious about losing weight, eat vegan. that means no animal products. no corpses, no dairy, no eggs. that means you eat like a human, not a vulture/calf/snake.

omnivorous mods may now commence modding me -1, Granola.

try a different method

[Anonymous Coward]

If any of you are somewhat physically active, don't try to go on Atkins. You will lose fat, but you also deplete all your glycogen stores and your muscles deteriorate. Instead, try somethin called a cyclic ketogenic diet. Its the same concept of Atkins, except you rotate weekly going into ketosis for a few days and then having a "carb up" at the end of the week for a certain time period to replenish glycogen.

diet

[MrScary]

You see a lot of comments were people say to eat less and esercise more and this I agree with. A few years ago I was diagnosed a couple of times with borderline high blood pressure. Mine was sitting at 159. I was told that if the next time that they saw me and it was at this level I would go on ligh blood pressure medication. I started walking again everyday. I was doing 2-3 hours of walking sometimes in 90+ weather. This was broken up into 3-4 walks. I cut back to 2 sodas a day and started to drink about 90 ounces a water a day. I started to cook my own meals and only ate twice a week with one meal being at a chinese resturaunt were the food is healthy. I know the owners and talk with them about the way they prepare meals. two years later I had lost 70+ pounds, I was above 350#, and my blood pressure was at 125. Notice that I did not have to buy a book to accomplish this. I now bike six days a week doing around 125-150 mile a week. I still need to lose around 50-60lbs. but I have also gained a lot of muscle.

Most people would do themselves a lot of benefit from just cutting out drinks with corn syrup in it. Also the use of heart rate monitor when working out will help you gauge your progress. You need to also have two workouts that week where your heart rate is kept between 75-85% of your max heart rate. Doing the same type of exercise everyday at the same heart rate will do you some benfit but your muscles will grow used to this. There was a study published were they looked at desk jockeys who exercised 5-6 days a week versus constuction workers who dead heavy labor for work and the desk jockeys fared better. Invest in a heart rate monitor work book and if your looking at a diet try the diabetic diet. Its free and you can find it on the internet. You can also see a doctor about a diet and exercise regimen and talk to a registered dietician about the diabetic diet. My next goal is to spend some time with a personal trainer to concentrate on my problem areas, i.e. my enormous deer gut.

Caveman diet...

[HyperColor Underware]

Good thinking, they lived.. what, 30 or 40 years?

Re:Caveman diet...

[IthnkImParanoid]

Because of their diet, or because lack of medicine/poor shelter/unsanitary living conditions? The days when people died from the flu aren't that far behind us.

In other words, your point is meaningless.

If you find exercise boring...

[Anonymous Coward]

...take up a form of exercise that involves both physical and mental exertion, such as a martial art. I took up Muay Thai. Muay Thai training gets you physically fit very fast, builds strength, cardio-vascular fitness, speed and stamina. Learning technique requires a lot of intellectual and physical effort. And sparring is impossible to find boring!

don't mind if I do!

[csimicah]

I just had some steak tartare last night. I know it's finely diced, not ground, but there was well more than 1/4 cup of it, and I feel just fine.

It is! Re:Atkins is no good

[Warlock48]

I too was skeptical, until I read this article.

In summary, a scientist found that the Atkins diet was working, and results "are something of an embarrassment to Brehm, whose research is funded by the American Heart Association, which has long advocated calorie-controlled, low-fat diets." Read the article for details...

So, I had a try, and lost the extra weight I hadn't been able to shed for the past few years. I'm only missing cake so far ;-)
And I eat my vegies now, not only meat as some think it's all Atkins is about.

Lose fat? I want to gain!

[sublimespot]

Me, I have the opposite problem. Ive been trying to get some fat for years unsuccessfully.

I sit in front of a computer appx 12 hours a day and yes I do eat. My average day is eggs hashbrowns and bacon for breakfast, burger and fries for lunch, a big dinner (salad potato w/cheese sour cream, roast beef), tons of snacks and about 4 cans of coke.

6 foot 2 and 140 pounds. Havent gained a pound since 9th grade (10 years ago)

Everyone says its because of a high metabolism. I dont think so. Im tired a lot (hence the 4 cans of coke / coffee), and I sleep 9-10 hours per day. Are there any doctors in the house?

Re:Lose fat? I want to gain!

[Anonymous Coward]

you just wait till get get past 40 years old, then you will fatten up like a big ol cow...

Re:Lose fat? I want to gain!

[Anonymous Coward]

Had yourself checked for tapeworms?

Fast, Cheap, Good -- Pick two

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know that motto for systems development and administration, yet here some of you go looking for the same idiotic "gimme results without effort or cost" nonsense for health.

There is no easy solution. Never has been, never will be. If you want to be healthy and in shape: Eat less, exercise more.

Even 11 minutes a day (less time than some folks spend maintaining their PC) is all it takes using 5BX for exercise, and we all know (or should know) the proper foods which make up a good diet.

If you fill your gut with snacks and soft drinks and don't expect any penalties, you're about as clueless as the folks who load up every Gator, Bonzi Buddy and other such crap on their PC and still expect it to run speedy and crash-free (and then complain to the sysadmin when it doesn't).

There is no-reboot for a fatal crash of your own personal physical system. One chance is all you get and quick fixes are just as unreliable and pie-in-the-sky out here in the real world as they are in software.

So, what'll it be: The equivalent of 10 smart kids thrown at computers at random in the hopes that a decent application will result, or proper planning and analysis to build the body you want?

South Beach Diet

[Mysticalfruit]

As someone who's lost ~15 pounds on the south beach diet, here's my take on things.

I didn't start the diet as a "I want to lose weight" I started the diet as a "I want to change my eating habits so I don't have to go on some insane drastic diet in the future."

Basically, it's been cutting refined sugars and simple carbohydrates out of my diet and replacing them with unrefined sugars and complex carbohydrates.

Initally, it was hard giving up soda and I craved a few things (like non whole grain bread) but I'm past that. Also my pallet has changed as well. I used to go and just down a pound of chocolate without even flinching. I now find that a little goes a long way.

Atkins effect on your kidneys

[Deimos_]

Atkins, an extremely high protein low carb diet will fry your kidneys and heart if you stay on it long enough. Atkins diet does not reduce the amount of fat in your body, almost all the weight loss is due to water loss and you'll put it back on as soon as you go off the diet.

Atkins will increase your chances of kidney disfunction and Coronary Heart Disease.

This really bothers me about Atkins, a FAD diet which people adopt without researching the consequences. ATKINS IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A BALANCED DIET AND EXERCISE!

Fat cells are created

Got excess weight? Here's a plan.

1. Do NOT snack. Eat 3 meals a day, a small breakfast (something with no sugar in it), a medium sized lunch and a well balanced dinner (meaning primarily green vegetables, a few bites of meat and a minor amount of carbs).
2. Exercise at least 30 minutes a day, preferably an hour.
3. See those fast food resturants? THEY'RE RUN BY TERRORISTS AND THEY WANT TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN! (Bwahaha)
4. Coke is bad m'kay? And I don't mean cocaine which is bad for you too, I mean coca cola. If you drink one 12 oz coke every two or three days, thats probably too much. If you must, drink the diet versions. Look at the back of these too, if they contain Aspartame(NutraSweet), stay away from them too, or you will go blind (literally).

I love the cooked flesh of animals as much as the next person (which is a lot, if it weren't for how bad it was for you, I would eat only meat,.... mmm bacon...), but this diet is simply BAD for you. Do NOT use it.

I would provide links but unless you're really lazy (and not going to listen to what I say anyway), I'm sure you can figure google out.

I have two diabetics in my immediate family, my father a Type 2 diabetic and my youngest sister, a Type 1 insulin dependant diabetic.

Re:Atkins effect on your kidneys

[iggymanz]

dude, don't believe that nonsense about Nutrasweet causing blindness or forming wood alchohol in the body - that's a stupid urban legend that's managed to finally make it's way into some fad diet/health nut books, and some whacko emails & websites. There is no basis or mechanism in biochemistry for that to happen. There is no evidence by real scientists that it happens.

No Proven Dangers. At Least Not Yet.

[bettiwettiwoo]

According to an article originally published by The London Telegraph (online version here), The Burning Question, but which I read in Sydney Morning Herald on 23 October 2003, two separate studies have been unable to prove any ill-effects from following a high-protein diet. Both studies showed that the Atkins diet work. This somewhat distressing for one of them as it had been funded by the American HEart Association, a fierce critic of Atkins.

Being to lazy to sum up the article I paste the full text of the article (copied from SMH) here:

The Burning Question

October 23, 2003

Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie, low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports.

An academic nutritionist at the University of Cincinnati, Dr Bonnie Brehm, is at the cutting edge of research into the biggest question to hit her field in decades: does the Atkins diet work?

Most nutritionists faced with the torrent of anecdotal evidence for its effectiveness have simply parroted the mantra that more research is needed, while muttering darkly about possible long-term health effects.

Brehm and her colleagues, in contrast, have spent the past few years actually doing the research and will unveil their findings at the American Dietetic Association's annual meeting next week.

They have been studying the effectiveness of the Atkins diet in trials involving people classed as clinically obese, implying a weight of more than 92 kilograms (14 stone) in a person 175 centimetres (5 foot, 9 inches) tall. The latest results are in - and they appear to vindicate the late Dr Robert Atkins, whose diet books have sold 15 million copies over 30 years.

According to Brehm, those following Atkins's low-carbohydrate diet for four months achieved twice the weight loss of those on a conventional calorie-controlled, low-fat diet. Furthermore, the team found no evidence of harmful effects from following the diet - at least during the study.

These results are in line with those found in similar small studies now starting to emerge. As well as backing the claims made for the Atkins diet, these latest results seem to further undermine standard nutritional advice about the need to focus on cutting fat and calories.

They are something of an embarrassment to Brehm, whose research is funded by the American Heart Association, which has long advocated calorie-controlled, low-fat diets.

As a scientist, Brehm puts unearthing the truth above pleasing her paymasters - but it is this that causes most concern. She is having problems explaining her findings - and in the increasingly vociferous debate over the Atkins diet, that may well land her in trouble at next week's meeting.

The scientific world is becoming increasingly polarised over the diet, with researchers such as Brehm being given a tough time over their apparent support for what some scientists regard as the nutritional equivalent of crystal therapy. At the heart of the controversy is the science behind the Atkins diet - first published 30 years ago - and whether it is really anything more than a collection of buzzwords.

Conventional wisdom dictates that calories are the key to weight loss, and so those who lose weight must simply be consuming fewer calories than they burn up. Yet, according to Brehm, the obese people who lost weight on the Atkins diet ate and burned up essentially the same number of calories as those on the standard diet. What was very different was the proportion of body fat shed by each group, which mirrored their percentage weight loss. On the face of it, this backs the central claim of the Atkins diet: that a low-c

It's working for me.

[Simple-Simmian]

Now it's been on /. I'll stop the Atkins diet. I can't be see traveling with the herd (joke) I started in mid Augest. I have lost over 30 lbs and still have about 15 to go. I got up to 200 lbs and should be about 154. If you don't read his book and refer back to it you are going to have problems. You need to think about how you eat and change your diet forever. If you don't you will just put the weight back on. I lost 20 lbs several times with high carb diets and never could get below 175 and eventually gained the weight back. Today I was 170 and have been holding that for a few days. It's not a problem you do that and then start loosing again. I have had to modify my diet several times over the last 2.5 months to continue loosing. Not a biggy, it's all covered in the book. I have a bad thyroid and it makes me resistant to weight loss and the stuff I take for it makes loosing hard too. That is also in the book. I have gone from wearing pants with a 36 inch waist to a 33 inch waist in 2.5 months. I have concluded through all this that processed sugar is a toxic I don't want in my body and that natural sugar intake needs to be very limited. I feel much better when not on the insulin roller coaster. (It's all in the book.) If it wasn't for Splenda I would be in bad shape. I love sweet stuff.

This Diet is expensive. Eating natural/fresh food cost more than processed bullshit we usually eat. You need to also take natural suplements to make sure you get all the minerals and vitamins you need. I am taking a big handful 3 times a day. I know that is also making me feel better and to actually be more healthy.

If you can find a doctor who knows Atkins you should see him if you can. I am seeing one and he found some other problems I am having that I am glad we caught.

Exercise is part of this diet and it's a life modification that like the eating habits is permanate. It really doesn't take that much time to get it done. I am spending under an hour a day at it. Time I used to spend in front of moniter and 3 computers. I haven't died or gone crazy for not being there either. It's actually more time my wife and I are spending together which is cool.

Last you have to ask why so much sugar and corn suryp are being added to the food we eat? Why are ADM and the big food companies adding this to our food? I am not being a tin foil hat about this. Sugar is a drug. Why is the population being druged? Why are so many complex oils being added to foods? Some of these are toxic (cotton seed oil) others you can't digest. Why is North America being fed all this toxic shit? Do yourself a favor even if you don't do Atkins. Start eating natural foods and stay away from processed food.

Can I buy some pot from you?

[caveat]

1. "Shrinking" cholesterol molecules? Damn, I never learned about shrinking molecules while I was getting my chem bachelors, please explain. Maybe smaller cholesterol micelles ("globules") in the bloodstream, but I can't see that affecting the health impact - maybe something to do with adhesion to existing plaques? Or perhaps you're thinking of HGL/LDL, the "good" and "bad" forms of cholesterol?

2. Cholesterol tests measure ng/mL IIRC, which means the size of the molecules/micelles/whatever is irrelvant - if those things mattered, cholesterol measures would be meaningless, a count of 140 with "small molecules" would be worse than 290 with "big molecules"

Re:Can I buy some pot from you?

[howlinmonkey]

Recent studies suggest that the size of cholesterol particles does have an effect on plaque buildup in individuals with high cholesterol. The study in this article shows that individuals with lower cholesterol, but smaller particles, are at a greater risk for heart disease.

Apparently, larger particles are less dense, and do not clump together as readily as smaller particles. I am not a doctor, and I don't play one on TV, so read more for yourself if you really want to understand it.

Re:Can I buy some pot from you?

[Slime-dogg]

That... doesn't make much sense. It's the HDL that is good for you, because it functions as the bullet that breaks up the LDL and VLDL (which both are the big artery cloggers.)

It just makes sense though. HDL is going to be jam packed, and will not be able to bind to anything. It's also smaller, and much faster moving, and also vacates the body much quicker. The LDL/VLDL is the stuff that congeals like butter in your arteries.

I've got a conspiracy theory in the back of my mind that all of the food companies (Kraft, Swanson, yada) cooked up this "study," because they have made such a huge investment in the "Low Fat" trend.

Vegetarians and Vegans and Atkins

[billstewart]

I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian, so the Atkins diet is pretty much limited to eggs and cheese and isn't particularly sustainable, though I suppose you could do it for a few weeks before going bonkers. For a vegan, it's obviously not an option - are there any plant protein sources that aren't also carbohydrate-rich, other than heavily-overprocessed extracts from soybeans or whatever?

I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, not health reasons, so while it took a few months to adjust to it after I'd made the decision, it wasn't really that hard, and if you eat eggs and dairy products it's possible to find food while travelling; vegans have a much tougher time with that, especially since they have to pay more attention to balancing their diets to get adequate nutrition. It's amazing how much food is tied in with culture, including the emotional associations with the cultural context, and also the frustration at the lack of convenience you have to put up with sometimes when adjusting diets.

Re:Vegetarians and Vegans and Atkins

[chialea]

I'm ovo-lacto as well, and it's surprisingly managable in european countries (even Germany). I'm more worried about going to a conference in China -- sure, I can say "I eat like a Bhuddist", but that doesn't cover MSG, and that'll take me down for longer than meat will...

I look at the Atkins diet and I'm baffled. Granted, I don't like the taste of meat at all, but people who eat meat don't smell good, and people on Atkins smell downright terrible. I suppose it's like smoking -- you just don't notice it.

I'm in the lucky minority that starts feeling ill if I eat too much, too often. I get really sick, I gain a bit of weight, and then I compensate, so perhaps I just don't understand the strength of the motivation to cut out just about everything I eat...

Lea

it may not be the case

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree that lowering calories is the most important part.

Originally people thought the Atkins diet was just an intake restriction diet. But it may not be the case.

But see the link below.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/1 4/ lowcarb.mystery.ap/index.html

ok, it's simple biomechanics... But...

[barfy]

Ok, the simple truth is this...

As adults... (The growth mechanism of children is quite different then the maintenance mechanisms of adults...)

We are genetically inclined to eat carbs. Our whole body from taste buds, to energy use, and insulin cycles are based upon the carbohydrate energy cycle.

Two problems... 100's of years of developing tasty food (IE food that has been shown to have maximum effect on our carbohydrate systems), and secondly, unparalled access to limitless quantities of such food.

And a third problem, we are hormonally beholding to the carbohydrate cycle. And hormones win nearly everytime over will-power. (Anyone who disbelieves this, is either genetically "lucky" or is woefully ignorant of modern psychiatry and the biomechanical nature of the brain and how it affects behavior).

This results in overeating of carbs (we are just doing what feels normal...) This results in insulin resistence (the body going... I am sorry sir, but I cannot possibly store any more energy in these cells), followed by type 2 diabetes (the blood is a lovely red syrup), followed by nerve damage, loss of limbs, blindness and death....

All of this because, well historically (ignoring the past 50 years or so), it was genetically superior to be carb-centric. Those that are carb-centric lived longer, were revered, and had more power.

Atkins works because it lowers blood sugar due to lack of carbohydrates in the diet. This essentially stops type 2 diabetes.

If calories are below need then energy is released by cells. (This will increase insulin sensitivity as cells now have space to store excess sugar)... (Though the calorie equation is best a guess. Basing how much water temprature rises is equivelant to biomechanical energy release is at best a sketchy and not fully understood relationship).

Ultimately people are MUCH healthier not being in type 2 diabetic and insulin resistent state. Than being *in* that state.

However, lack of blood sugar has negative affect on brain activity, and excess protien in the blood has been shown to increase kidney stone production, and may be related to renal failure....

So, once moved to the much healthier non-diabetic bloodstream, and non-insulin resistent cell-state, a balanced macro-nutrient diet, is probably best (as research done on sports teams, and diabetic patients)...

BUT.... Oh and this is a big BUT!!! We are still hormonally driven beings.... And hormones will drive you back to Carbo-Heaven... Cuz that is what we are genetically incline to eat. And this will make this an ongoing mental and physical exercise to exorcise the hormonal demons..

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no basis in fact for what you have stated. This is the kind of crap the high carb nutritionists put out. You haven't read the book and do not know anything about the diet if you make statements like this. Over 20 years of clinical use of this diet have proven you are wrong. Read the book then speak about the diet.

Party food and Atkins Hackers

[billstewart]

A lot of my friends are 30-50-year-old hackers who are doing the Atkins thing to get rid of or manage the weight they built up in their 20s and 30s. It's made really odd changes in the food people bring to parties. 20 years ago, we would have brought healthy hippie type foods - things like tabouli and hummus and rice dishes and Mexican food and such. But with the Atkins thing, it's mostly different kinds of meat and fish.

A friend of mine has her annual crushed-ice and Torani Syrup collection snow-cone party, and almost the entire set of food there was Meat and Sugar...

South Beach Diet

[aschlemm]

I've lost 40 pounds going from 230 to 190 since I started following the South Beath Diet. It appears similar to the Atkins diet in that for the first two weeks on phase 1, carb intake is pretty restricted. After two weeks then a person stays on phase 2 until they reach their ideal weight. After that the diet is phase 3 which is really maintainence mode for life. This diet teaches the differences between good carbs and bad carbs and so my wife and I enjoy a great variety of food in this diet while avoiding the bad carbs.

It was tough at first as we eat potatoes, lots of rice, and bread before starting the diet. We avoid potatoes and only use brown rice, and whole or sprouted grain breads now. We also try to avoid sugar but the diet book as some tasty desserts. We use to enjoy chocolate quite a bit but now we're into dark chocolate only, and in moderation. We both feel so much better as we no longer experience the highs of lows of our blood sugar going up and down because of our poor diet. My wife also had problems with high tryglyceride levels in her blood but her last blood work came base with normal tryclyceride levels and at that time she had only been on the diet for 3 weeks!

I highly recommend the South Beach Diet for anyone wanting a diet that works (If your following It!) while not feeling like you're on a diet. We eat more now that what we used to and still lose weight since we're not getting all of the bad carbs and sugars like we used to. The other thing I suggest is people look at the packages of the good they eat and note the serving size. You'll be surprised how offen a package contains 2 or more servings and eating the whole thing in one sitting helps to promote weight gain since it's more food than what a person needs IMHO.

Don't know why this is so controversial...

[Captain Beefheart]

...Atkins discussions for some reason seem to draw out more urban legend, second-hand, and bad information than any hot topic I've ever come across, including politics and religion. There are many reasons for this:

1. People who don't read the book and try eating meat and cheese to lose weight. They suffer and end up badmouthing the diet.

2. People who watch the above suffer and assume the diet is bad...and go around badmouthing it.

3. People who've "heard of" vaguely ominous scientific studies but can't provide concrete rebuttals.

4. People who say Atkins is BS because all you need to do is exercise and "eat right." Well, according to Atkins, his diet *is* "eating right."

Low-fat diet+exercise will simply not work for a significant percentage of the population. Some people will simply not lose weight with the traditional exercise and diet route. The human body is a complex and often uncooperative machine.

In conclusion, read the material. No, really. Actually read the book. Just one chapter, even. Don't skim. At least focus on one chapter. I garantee you wouldn't be so hard on the diet if you just did a little homework.

Re:Don't know why this is so controversial...

[ryanvm]

Low-fat diet+exercise will simply not work for a significant percentage of the population. Some people will simply not lose weight with the traditional exercise and diet route.

Whether the diet is low-fat or not is irrelevant. A low-calorie diet and exercise will ABSOLUTELY result in weight loss. It has to. As long as your body is spending more calories than you're taking in then you're going to lose weight. If not, then your body doesn't obey the laws of thermodynamics.

I don't have anything against Atkins, I just think that it complicates a very simple issue. Who wants to screw around worrying about carbs and whatnot. Just stop eating so much.

Re:Don't know why this is so controversial...

[MKalus]

Low-fat diet+exercise will simply not work for a significant percentage of the population. Some people will simply not lose weight with the traditional exercise and diet route. The human body is a complex and often uncooperative machine.

Any "diet" in the sense it is understood today is bullshit. The idea is to eat a BALANCED diet, but what is balanced depends on the individual.

It still is true, eat less calories than you burn (up to a certain degree) and you will loose the fat. There is no real magic about this.

The way the calories come together though is different for each individual and you have to try and find out.

I am pretty anal about my nutrion mainly because of my Ironman training and for me it is a year of hits and miss. I experimented with different combinations and finally after a year I have found something that seems to work for me.

There is no "one stop shop" for a diet, it is all about your lifestyle and your diet should adapt both to your lifestyle and to your nutrional requirements.

Atkins might or might not work. High carb and low fat might or might not work. Experiment, see how you feel and then make a choice.

1970's? Try ancient history.

[Anonymous Coward]

Theoritical conjecture? No FUD allowed here.

Give it the damn "caveman test."

"Atkins," the "ketogenic diet," and whatever else people call it is not something new. It's not something 1970's. Think millions of years, and you'll start to approach how long it has been around.

It is simply one half of the citric acid cycle, which is part of metabolism. One half is the ketogenic, the other, glucogenic.

With respect to food and hominid metabolism, there are basically 2 states:

1. FOOD (ie. times of plenty, as in: I'm eating this starchy tuber I just dug up RIGHT NOW.)

2. NO FOOD (ie. starvation, as in: Hey Gog, remember how that starchy tuber tasted that I dug up 2 days ago?)

I'm not talking about weeks of starvation, but a time frame of only about 18-36 hours. Once you have burned through your immediate glucose stores and your liver has emptied most of its glycogen stores, what happens then? Gluconeogenesis happens then. Ketogenesis happens then. Fatty acids that represent your stored energy sources are broken down into pyruvate, alpha-ketoglutarate, succinyl-CoA, fumarate, or oxaloacetate are then converted into glucose and glycogen and wisked through the appropriate cycle to give you what you need to keep chasing that small furry animal and catch it, even though your last meal was 2 days ago.

Clearly, I can't compress 4 semesters of basic and advanced biochemistry and a few years of primary research into a single slashdot post, but the basics of human metabolism are accessable to everyone from their local public and university libraries. Go buy a text book, even. Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry is an excellent place to start.

Let's approach it from another way: There is no fat loss without lipidolysis, unless you cut it out. Whether you eat NO carbohydrates and take the nose dive into the ketogenic part of your metabolism all the time, or you eat like a supermodel (small portions of carbohydrate-filled food) and experience brief periods of the ketogenic half of the citric acid cycle, it's all the same thing, only at different rates.

Worried about your kidneys and the ketobodies? Drink the amount of water a human is SUPPOSED to drink every day, and you'll be fine. Constipation is only an artifact of the change-over from starchy foods to protein and low-residue foods. After a few days things are back to normal, and you poop the way your digestive system was supposed to, in relation to what the human diet was thousands of years ago. (clue: No McDonalds and other high-carbohydrate foods)

If your varied dietary intake + caloric control + exercise works for you, then that is absolutely wonderful (no sarcasm). I applaud your efforts, and you should feel lucky that you are a fine example of an ancient metabolism that survives in an overly starchy world. For the segment of the population that isn't so lucky, the option of carbohydrate starvation (yet eating a normal intake of fatty and amino acids) is there.

Y,IAAB. (Yes, I am a biochemist.)

Guinness

[Simple-Simmian]

Hey Guinness actually is lower in carbs than most light beers. So it's not that bad. You just have to watch it. Well and not drink at all during the first 2 phases then eat and drink with thought later on.

"Guinness is good for you."

ps...

[UtilityFog]

BTW, the long term -- total weight loss was 25,
and then levelled off with no modification of the diet. I'm now at a 13% fat index and have held steady for a year. Serum lipids are better than before (particularly HDL/LDL ratio). (and I ate an entire Peking duck the day before being tested!)

--Josh

Torani

[Simple-Simmian]

You can get lots of Torani made with splenda. We have a slection of the stuff. It's great.

Re:Torani

[billstewart]

Oh, cool. She had some artificially-sweetened Torani, but it was evil, like other aspartame products. Splenda would probably do ok...

MOD THIS BABYUP

[emptybody]

Please, mod this oneup o few with mod points.

Not necessarily true

[IthnkImParanoid]

My body may not be designed that way, but societies have relied heavily on food that must be extensively processed. For example, a southwestern Native American tribe (Utes?) had a diet that revolved around acorns because it was the only food that was plentiful in the area. It took the women all day to make them edible, but they did. It isn't suprising that southwestern Native American tribes have one of the highest rates of diabetes in the world. Societies evolved to subsist on what was around, so there is no one diet that will work for people of all genetic backgrounds.

Re:Not necessarily true

[Malcontent]

As you have pointed out there are consequenses to eating things your body was not designed to eat. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer are a few examples.

Gyms with computers? Tried that

[billstewart]

It's been tried - a couple of years ago, the gym I went to had four exercise bikes with computers and touchscreens mounted on them, and if you wanted to sign up with the dotcom-boom service provider, you could have the bike track your exercise activity for you. It was mechanically impractical to use the touchscreen for much more than clicking on links while pedaling, so things like logging into Slashdot were difficult (and the screen resolution was low enough, I think 640x480 but maybe 800x600, that you really needed to have a login configured for low clutter.) Unfortunately, they also had the timing set so that if you stopped pedalling for too long, it would pop up a screen to nag you to pedal faster and ask if you wanted to continue or log in to their service or see music videos instead, and "too long" wasn't long enough to do much typing. Also, you had to lean forward too far to type on the thing, which interfered too much with comfort as well as pedalling.

There apparently wasn't enough revenue in it to pay for the expensive bikes and DSL connection. My guess was that the business model needed enough people to sign up for their pay site that tracked your usage, or else wanted lots of money from the gym. The gym dumped them after a few months, and they joined the great dot-bomb death list pretty quickly.

Now, a set of I-Glasses and a handheld video-game console could work for that sort of system, which either means a working business model (unlikely) or bringing your own.

well....

[Cnik70]

as a part time personal trainer, I have seen numerous VICTIMS of the Atkins diet. 1) each and evey one has lost "weight", yet it is mostly water weight since carbohydrates bond 4g of water to each gram of carb... no glycogen in the muscles (carbs) = less water in the body = less "weight" 2) next you have the loss of muscle mass since a body without carbs feeds off of the next availiable source... and it's not fat. So they then lose muscle "weight" which leaves them with a lower metabolism, since muscle burns roughy 50 calories per pound of muscle daily at rest. Less muscle = less ability to burn those calories = easier to regain fat. 3) noone has yet to do any long term studies on the followers of low carb / atkins dieters since it's next to impossible to find a long term follower. Yet what I do find is alot of people who lost weight while doing atkins, ad then each and every one has regained it all back + extra (see above how loss of muscle makes it harder to keep fat off) 4) conclusion - learn how to eat right, ditch the processed garbage, tv dinners, sodas, fast food, along with all of your excuses as to why you can't go without these crappy foods. Learn that building muscle keeps you young and keeps you fit and thin. Learn that there are no shortcuts to losing weight. You need to change your lifestyle for the long run, not just for a few weeks to lose a dress/pant size. 5) now step away from your PC, turn off your TV, and actually go outside.

What happens when you mix genes?

[IthnkImParanoid]

One of the reasons why the French and Italians do so well with a lot of wine is because they're been drinking it for hundreds of generations.

That sounds reasonable, and raises an interesting question: what happens when you mix the genes of all these different regions together? Is it a coincidence that America, the world's melting pot, has the highest rate of obesity in the world? Not only are people from so many different genetic backgrounds mixing together and eating the same food, but many people are of mixed ethnicity (I'm eight different types of European, myself).

Perhaps America's obesity problem is, in part, due to our lack of cultural food that we've all evolved process efficiently.

Re:What happens when you mix genes?

[Anonymous Coward]

what happens when you mix the genes of all these different regions together?

Diverse genetics living in a common area does not equal mixing of genes. In other words, most people still like to fuck and marry people that look like themselves. Most of the diversity is just statistics. I grew up in Chicago and it is one of the most racially segragated cities in the US.

repost without moronic errors and line breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I started trying this a year and a half ago, and wrote the following after the first few months. All remarks are still valid:

Alimentary[sic], My Dear Watson

While I was on vacation in early July, I happened to read the NYTimes magazine article by Gary Taubes which opened my eyes to an extent. The import of the article was that modern dietary conventional wisdom has it pretty much backwards, and that eating a low-fat diet is actually the cause of the current obesity epidemic and a lot of heart disease and diabetes.

Getting back home and doing a flurry of research revealed that Taubes had published a similar article in in Science about a year ago. What he documents is that the notion that fat is bad for you is a political, not a scientific, result, and that the actual studies don't show it at all. Since the NIH and FDA got the bee in their bonnet about fat, they've spent more than a billion dollars trying to prove it, and failed.

Consider an "epidemiological" study of cars. Let's assume that the researchers believe that engine oil is a prime cause of engine trouble. You could quite easily take a sample that showed that there was a strong positive correlation between cars that dripped oil and ones that broke down. Then you could just as correctly show that you could prevent oil dripping by not putting any oil in at all. Bingo! The "proof" of your presumed conclusion. That's about how rigorous the basis for the antifat doctrine is.

The reality is much more complex. In fact, the famous Boehringer Mannheim metabolic pathways chart covers an entire wall in finely detailed arrows and chemical formulae. But a very simplified version goes something like this: There are three basic classes of food, called the macronutrients; they are proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. Proteins and fats are essential for human life; carbohydrates are not. Carbohydrates are all converted to glucose in your bloodstream. The more you eat, the more glucose. The body reacts to glucose in the blood with insulin, which acts to cause cells to burn glucose for energy and convert it to fat to be stored.

A whole raft of hormonal imbalances can result when insulin is constantly overproduced. There seems to be some general mechanism that tries to balance anabolic and catabolic hormones. Insulin is anabolic. Too much of it for too long and the body will either overproduce catabolic hormones or underproduce the other anabolic ones.

The upshot of long-term carbohydrate consumption is a phenomenon known as "Syndrome X", so named by Gerald Reaven, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford. It's a cluster of symptoms that tend to occur together, including high blood pressure, high serum triglycerides, decreased HDL, and obesity, and marks a risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Well, go to any grocery store and look what you'll find in the so-called "heart-healthy", low-fat foods: carbohydrates. Loads of them. Remember, it doesn't matter whether it's sugar or starch, honey or whole wheat, it's all glucose to your bloodstream.

So it would seem that the arrogance and ignorance of the high priesthood of health in this country has contributed to, if not indeed largely caused, the current (real, well-documented) epidemic and of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Oh, yes, one other thing for those of you who are into life extension and know about the caloric restriction results -- one of the main physiological markers for caloric restriction is low insulin.

Well, who can believe that? I did a bunch of research, and discovered that there are more different opinions among dietary advisors than among economists. The only thing that *everybody* agreed on was that olive oil was good for you, and trans-fatty acids (margarine) was bad.

One of the more interesting subfields I ran across was the paleolithic diet. The idea is that humans had a couple of million years to adapt to a hunter/gatherer diet, and only 10k to adapt to an agricultural one. Given evolu

Amazing

[mdw2]

Slashdot, the one site you can go to if you want to hear the overweight, overworked, and malnourished shoot down any and all diets :)

overclocking?

[swankypimp]

This isn't so much overclocking as it is case modding; sorority chicks don't care if there's a Pentium III 600 mHz inside as long as it's in a sexy case.

Attractive Girl at the Bar: I'm drunk and you're thin. Wanna go home with me?

Atkins-Using Geek: I know UNIX.

AGATB: You're a eunuch? Eww...

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

It screams of using a ,eyboard without home key guidex.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were the case, many other words would be misspelled. But a large number of illiterates pronounce especially "expecially", which makes his post look like it was cut and pasted from a respectable source, then edited.

Atkins diet rebuttals

[gancho]

Atkins diet rebuttals:

• Atkins Diet Alert, from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
• The Guardian: Atkins diet is 'pseudo-science', say experts
• Big Fat Fake: The Atkins diet controversy and the sorry state of science journalism
• Atkins diet banned in Scottish hospitals

Also think about the industries that market the Atkins Diet: groups like the meat industry, the same people who created Cool 2B Real, a site that covertly markets meat to young women. These groups don't have your interests at heart--just their bottom lines.

There was your problem

[xintegerx]

Instead of worrying about how hard you work (thus how many calories you burn), you're worried about the wrong things.

1) Varying your cardio machines
2) The time to reach on each piece of machine

Yes, those two are unimportant, but what really matters is 1) HOW HARD YOU WORK YOUR BODY, 2) HOW OFTEN YOU WORK YOUR BODY HARD. When you run, don't worry about how long you run for. Just run and make sure you work hard. And if you are busy the next day, then run for twenty minutes. EACH GOOD CARDIO SESSION OF EVEN 10 MINUTES TWICE A DAY GIVES YOUR METABOLISM A KICK IN THE NUTS AND MAKES IT CRY CALORIES.

How hard should one run? If you don't feel an energy boost and happy after running, then you are limiting yourself and running way below the pace you should be. Running should be a CARDIO EXERCISE, as in "your body gets pumped" and the "blood gets moving" and you feel the energy that helps you have a great day, never mind the fat loss. It is this energy that you should be feeling that motivates those successful dieters to stay on the track--since they are really doing it too feel good. Since you were unsuccessful, and clearly did not feel good after each run since otherwise you would have been addicted to the "high" you get and lost many pounds, I don't think you ran as hard as your body needed to get blood flowing. Two things that support my theory that you didn't are that you think varying cardio machines was what you needed to do (uh no, that's in working out muscles, you want to work out different muscles and thus use different machines), and that you worry about the number of minutes you make a treadmill move, instead of the the pace you make your heart move. All three things show why you failed, which is not the fault of thousands of years that show activity makes people thinner, and you are no exception.

That is all.

incorrect!

[Anonymous Coward]

The topsoil has become considerably depleted, and the food you eat today doesn't contain nearly the same amount of nutrients as identical food grown in the same spot only a couple hundred years ago. That's one of the reasons that vitamin/mineral supplements are becoming more popular these days. A young, healthy individual won't necessarily be impacted, by when you get older (like 50+) and your body starts to deteriorate and things aren't quite in peak shape anymore, then you'll notice the difference between just eating natural food, and eating natural food + supplements. And I mean, you'll *really* notice it, as in you'll feel like shit without the supplements.

Re:incorrect!

[Tablizer]

The topsoil has become considerably depleted, and the food you eat today doesn't contain nearly the same amount of nutrients as identical food grown in the same spot only a couple hundred years ago.

Depleting the topsoil has been a constant problem since at least the middle-ages, and probably further back. Farmers have been leaving land vacant for a season or two and rotating crops to "recharge" the soil for thousands of years. After all, mass agriculture is what resulted in the population boom of the last few thousand years. Before that, there were far less humans on the Earth.

Give me a break.

[MarkusQ]

Ah, here we go, the "moral superiority" of the metabolically skinny.

"The metabolocally skinny"? Give me a break. You could make just as strong a case for individual differences in the desire to rape and pillage. Some people just don't like to rape women and burn the homes of their foes as much as others. For them, maintaining the peace isn't really a matter of "strong will" any more than it's a matter of strong will for me not to eat broccoli. Does that mean that someone who goes around raping and looting is just "weak willed"? And so forth...

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for yourself?

-- MarkusQ

Re:Give me a break.

[finkployd]

There cannot be middle ground here?

You made an incredibly stupid "taken to the extreme" argument, so here is mine.

You are saying that people are always responsible for their bodily functions? So those with cancer, those who have mental deficiencies, and those who have asthma only suffer from these problems because they are not taking responsibility for themselves?

This is very simple Markus, like most things involving humans, it is a combination of genetics and willpower. my roommate is skinny as a rail and eats all the time. He is exerting no willpower at all but still not gaining weight. I am about 30 lbs overweight and put forth a great effort to just keep it that way and struggle to drop that ever further. For some people it takes no work at all to maintain ideal body weight, for others it takes more willpower and effort to fight their own genetics than the naturally skinny people will ever exert in their lifetimes. I have to feel like crap most of the time and force myself to work out constantly, and nothing pisses me off more than some lazy fucker who happens to not have to lift a finger to lose weight thinking that i just haven't taken responsibility for myself.

No it is not just genetics, and no it is not willpower and "taking responsibility for yourself", it is a combination of the two, with different ratios required for everyone.

Finkployd

Re:Give me a break.

[AJWM]

I can't figure out which of the antecedant posts you're agreeing or disagreeing with.

As for taking responsibility for oneself, I agree entirely. Which means, for example, if I'm overweight, I won't blame anyone else for that. It doesn't, though, necessarily mean that I'll starve myself to conform to your idea of what my ideal weight should be.

And of course, there's a significant difference between what one chooses to do to (or permit of) one's self (overweight, etc) and what one chooses to do to others (raping and pillaging). The former is defensible, the latter not.

Re:Give me a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The metabolocally skinny"? Give me a break. You could make just as strong a case for individual differences in the desire to rape and pillage.

I challenge you to do so.

You may find it difficult to do so. Studies of seperated-at-birth twins, for example, strongly support the idea that genetics is far and away the most important factor in determining one's body weight and other health indicators.

Re:Give me a break.

[MarkusQ]

Agreed on pretty much all points.

I wasn't so much taking a side in the argument (I do, however, think no-carb diets are unhealthful, and advocate moderation & exercise instead) as I was pointing out that the parent to my post was taking a silly stand, IMHO.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Give me a break.

[MarkusQ]

nothing pisses me off more than some lazy fucker who happens to not have to lift a finger to lose weight thinking that i just haven't taken responsibility for myself.

You're correct, that "lazy fucker" doesn't lift a finger to stay slim. They lift their whole body, many times a day. Rather than working out (which often results in increase in muscle & thus body mass) try following one of those "lazy fuckers" around, matching them movement for movement, and eating what they eat mouthful for mouthful.

Yes, genetics plays a large part. Some people are naturally more sedentary. Some people tend to eat more than others. But unless the genetic differences include some sort of bowel obstruction or the abillity to transmute matter, weight is still subject to the usual conservation laws.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Give me a break.

[KDan]

Actually, as myself one of those metabolically skinny people, I think there is a point there. Though I do tend to walk very fast and move quite a bit - when I'm moving - I have occasionally gone through fairly long periods of being a total lazy fucker and moving very little while still eating large amounts of food, and barely gained any weight. Hell, I started work two and half months ago, haven't done any sport since, and gained... about 1kg. I'm 1m83 weighing 74kg atm - the heaviest I've been in a while.

However I am unhappy with sporting a (small but not inexistant) beer gut and doing something about it - for the last few days I've been going to the gym every morning. And from experience, now that I've started, given that I'm also going with someone else, I'll be going to the gym for a good long time. And I do believe that if I did really nothing for a very long period, I would probably get fat like anyone else.

But I think that otherwise, under normal conditions, my body is very good at maintaining what it believes to be its ideal weight. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't digest all that it takes in when there's too much (and I do occasionally stuff myself). That may be a differentiating factor between me and someone who has a lot of trouble keeping slim: if I eat too much, I will get fat, very slowly, because my body will absorb a little bit too much of the food i eat. Someone less lucky might have a very efficient stomach which absorbs everything you put in it, rather than something close to what it feels it needs...

Daniel

Re:Give me a break.

[finkployd]

Your flaw here is assuming i just sit around and complain about "lazy fuckers" :)

I watch what I eat to the point of counting calories and carbs. The vast majority of what I what is vegetables, followed by chicken and beef of some time. Then usually fruit as a snack. Compared to some people I know, I am a virtual living example of how to eat right. I have even mostly given up beer.

I also do weight training two times a week and cartio for 30 minutes three times a week, usually in the morning. I'm not saying there are not people who do even more than me, but there plenty of people in better shape who do not have to do that. While I am picking up muscle mass I'm not counting that, I'm pretty much just looking at my beer gut and ability (or lack of) to fit into 34" jeans.

As for usual conservation laws, I'm not saying they don't apply, just that genetics play a strong role in how hard someone has to work to use them (ie resist eating bad food, and working out enough to expend more energy than they take in). Your body's metabolism is different from another person's, and it changes over your own lifetime. Heck when I started college, I was pretty much a typical programming lump who didn't move unless absolutely necessary, and I maintained a diet that would have scared the daylights out of my Mom. Except that through high school and those early college years I was considered too skinny. Then without any change in my lifestyle, I began to pick up weight, and have to fight to keep it off. Ain't growing up fun? :)

Finkployd

Re:Give me a break.

[MarkusQ]

I have occasionally gone through fairly long periods of being a total lazy fucker and moving very little

This is the kicker. "Moving very little" means different things to different people. They took video tapes of people "just sitting" and "doing nothing" and there is a huge difference in the amount of motion (and thus callories burned) between the "metabolically" skinny and fat people.

In other words, it isn't that you poop more, it's that you fidgit more. You may also tend to sleep less, or be clumsy, or restless--there are a lot of ways to burn off excess food without putting it on as muscle mass.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Give me a break.

[MarkusQ]

I was pretty much a typical programming lump who didn't move unless absolutely necessary, and I maintained a diet that would have scared the daylights out of my Mom. Except that through high school and those early college years I was considered too skinny. Then without any change in my lifestyle, I began to pick up weight, and have to fight to keep it off. Ain't growing up fun? :)

I'm in a simmilar boat. Or was, until I discovered I could revert by going back to my old ways. As much as I though of myself as "inert" what I really meant was I wasn't into sports. But I did have two (bike) paper routes in HS, and I used to pace when I was debugging, and squirm a lot in dull classes, etc., etc. The problem wasn't a change in the physics of my metabolism, but in patterns of micro behaviour. For example, working in a cube felt awfully constraining, because I was used to moving around a lot without realizing it.

Now I have a job where I get to pull cable and dig through warehouses and clamber around in empty office buildings as well as program, and I take my 2 year old toddler to work with me every day. Guess what? I'm back to being "metabolically skinny" again.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Give me a break.

[Theaetetus]

There are definitely some metabolic differences between different body types - mesomorphs vs. endomorphs vs. ectomorphs, for example, and these differences affect more than just body fat percentage.

For instance, I (and my brother and my father) have very large frames, even though I'm not very overweight (though I am slightly, and working to fix that). I'm 6'6", and weigh 220. My family's genetics are such that it's very tough for us to lose fat, but incredibly easy to pack on muscle. I joined a gym about 3 months ago, and in that time I've doubled my maximum bench press, have seen my squat weight go from 100 pounds to 235 pounds, and have gone from doing dumbbell presses with 25 pound weights up to 85 pounds. My body fat percentage has dropped, but not a huge amount. I also do cardio three times a week.

I'm not kidding myself to say I'll never be a beanpole - and even a six-pack is highly unlikely, if not outright impossible. However, in less than six months, I'll probably have to turn sideways to fit my shoulders through doors and my biceps will be as big as normal people's thighs.

Contrast this with one of my best friends, who is 6', 160 pounds. He is a beanpole, and though we work out together, he has a huge amount of difficulty adding weight (and thus muscle size). He'll never be intimidatingly large, but he'll have a six-pack without ever trying.

The metabolism and genetics really do make a huge difference.

-T

Re:Give me a break.

[KDan]

I see what you mean, but... the thing is, if I don't eat much, I'll still maintain roughly the same weight, and I haven't had the impression that I fidget less when I eat less. That's the other edge of the blade, though. It takes insane efforts for me to get under 67kg, just like it would take insane efforts for me to get above about 74. Even if I don't eat much and do plenty of sport, the lowest I've managed was 66.8kg and I still had a bit of a beer gut left to get rid of - it just won't go. On the other hand, if I do fuck all and eat a lot, the max I can take is up to 74ish (usually it stopped at 73.8... it's only after two months of sitting on my ass at work and eating regularly that I got up to 74).

Anyway... we won't find the answer by talking about it.

Daniel

"Eat Right for your Blood Type"

[sneakcjj]

My wife and I went to a nutritionist this year and it was probably the best thing we could have done for our health.

Before our appointment, the nutritionist had us get a blood test. At the appointment (which lasted 3 hrs) we went over the results and developed a diet taylored to our blood type. What we ended up with was two diets that were very different.

Basically, my blood type (O) needs A LOT more protein than other blood types. Thus, Atkins is great for me but not so great for my wife (who is not O). At the same time, sugars and other carbs are bad for both us.

The bottom line is, see an expert. In my case, a nutritionist was the best bet. Nutritionists are not doctors so keep that in mind.

Just google for "Eat Right Blood Type" and you'll find resources.

It works for me

[hilldogz]

I have been doing Atkins for six months and lost 55lbs. During the week I stick with meat,fish,eggs,cheese with salads and veggies. During the weekend I eat anything I want.
All this crap about starvation is just that. I do take the time to drink plenty water,take a good all purpose vitamin and as a boost to my health and weight loss I take a scoop of Symbiotic's Colostrum. I sleep less, have energy and it has lowered my colostrol and blood pressure (so says my family doc). As for exercise I'm a loser in that area. Don't like to and never will. That's why I take the Colostrum to build the muscle tone as I lose so I don't look like a deflated balloon.
I have been reading here where the diet puts stress on your kidneys well let me tell you an extra 55lbs puts stress on everything!

Lost 60 lbs this year - but it's not good

[Yxes]

I wanted to lower my cholesterol and went on a "heart smart" diet (my total cholesterol was ~223). I gained 30 lbs in 4 months doing this and weighed 250 lbs when I finally gave up on it. I reviewed the success stories and the lower cholesterol enjoyed by people on the atkins site and decided to give it a try.

I went on Atkins in January and lost 60 lbs by September. I was feeling great and went to get my cholesterol checked only to find that it has risen 36 points to 259. The Dr. wants to put me on drugs now that I'll have to take for the rest of my life. I've decided to wait a year and try exercising more to see if that helps but I'm going to take his advice if nothing changes by next September.

I Wish I Was Taller

[Vagary]

Did your wife also gain height on your exercise plan? You should really consider marketing it, especially in light of the recent study that found a correllation between height and income.

Re:I Wish I Was Taller

[Anonymous Coward]

come on people, isn't it obvious? he gained an inch of muscle on top of his head.

duh.

Re:I Wish I Was Taller

[BrianH]

LOL! No, she didn't. You have to be pretty seriously overweight to lose height (and later gain it back when the weight is lost). My wife was only a little overweight, and didn't gain any height when she lost what little fat she had.

Better for your knees too

[Hecatonchires]

Bicycling around better for your knees, especially when you are still overweight.

Re:Better for your knees too

[gfxguy]

It's not better for your health when you live in certain metropolitan areas. Quite the contrary - it's pretty detrimental. Not the bikes fault, but horribly planned roadways and the must-drive mentality.

So here's the thing, I can jog in my neighborhood (I don't), or I can load the bike up on the car, drive to a large park that has some roadway, and ride. One will take 30 to 45 minutes, and I'll get 30 to 45 minutes of exercise. One will take 1 hour and 45 minutes - 30 minutes to load up and get there, 30 minutes to load up and come back, and 30 to 45 minutes of exercise.

I don't know about you, but it's hard enough to find that 45 minutes to begin with, let alone add an extra hour onto it.

Personally, though, I have an elliptical walker at home. I like other exercises, but for aerobics it's my favorite, and I can watch TV while I'm doing it. I go for about an hour, and the only reason I have that much time is because I don't waste it driving to the gym or a park.

Wrong again..

[Anonymous Coward]

It was because of dinosaurs. TYRANNOSAURUS REX.

DINO-SAUCERS

dun dun dun dun, dun dun dun dun, dun dun!

Dino-saucerrrrrs, dun dun dun dun!

and Denver. The last (or lost?) dinosaur.

BE A VEGITARIAN

[Anonymous Coward]

Live longer, Healthy.
Stop killing creatures to fill your dirty stomachs. Stop raring them on cruel animal farms.
For all I know, your accumilated karma will make u a pig or a cow in your next reincarnation.

I've got the best diet!

[Jahf]

I found the best way to diet.

I no longer want food ... and I can get completely stoned 24/7 and miss a week of work at a time on my doctor's orders. I've lost 10 pounds in 5 days!

Yes folks, that's right ... what you need is a ...

TONSILLECTOMY!

mod this up!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's right. Too much excercise is as bad as none at all. Go look at old olympic athletes. You'll find that most of them are diseased or died early (or both).
If you want to be healthy, you only need to walk around a bit instead of driving everywhere. Maybe swim laps a couple times a weak, but no need to get completely exhausted. Just get the blood flowing and the muscles streched out. Don't binge. Eat a healthy, varied diet. Minimize the stress in your life however you can (mediation is excellent for this). And for all you hackers out there: get enough sleep AT NIGHT. If you don't sleep at night, then you'll screw up your natural rythm and throw your body's hormonal production out of whack. By not getting enough rest AT NIGHT you're setting up major nasty consequences in the future. All kinds of nasty diseases will come your way...

Think of the Children

[Vagary]

It would take a very long time, perhaps 1,000 years, for our race to evolve to the point it could consume carbohydrates without consequence. By that time, many generations would have died from diabetes and heart disease. Why wait? I am alive now.

Fine, you eat your carefully tuned, specialized diet and I'll continue to eat shit. In a thousand years, after thermonuclear war, my ancestors will eat the plentiful stores of twinkies and chips and whatever the hell else they want while yours will scrounge for rats and cockroaches -- who will have won then, huh?

WHO IS LAUGHING NOW?

[Anonymous Coward]

/. is officially the marketing tool of choice to sneak up on all the "informed" geek masses. That, or we've all just become mouthpieces for meaningless crap/products that some fool thinks fit the "geek" element. As far as the overclocking the body analogy goes, come on... Zero stories about recreational consciousness expansion, but the ATKINS diet?

Goodbye fools.

How I lost 40 lbs in the last 5 months..

[Danathar]

I'm a self admitted geek. Most people don't want to hear this, but if you want to lose weight, you have to count calories. People HATE to hear that. But you have a certain amount you burn each day and to lose weight you have to eat less than that caloric amount. Although it is'nt good for you, you can lose weight eating twinkies, so long as the caloric total from your twinkies is less than the total calories you burn per day. This is true with ANY food. What I found out is that FAT/SUGARY foods have by weight and mass the highest amounts of calories in them, so If you want to be full when you eat you naturally gravitate towards low fat foods because they are bulkier and are lower in calories.

I cut my calories to 1500 per day, nor more than 500 per meal. And this is important, you CAN'T just eat 1500 calories in one sitting and then wait till 12:01am the next day and do it again. You have to be consistant and spread it out.

I weighed 194LBS and I was PORKING out...now I'm 154lbs and feel great! The first three weeks are the hardest. But once you've trained your brain for a new habit it's not that hard!

One more thing people forget about the Atkins diet, its also NO ALCHOHOL and NO SUGAR!!!

If all you want to do is lose a quick 10 lbs...switch to diet soda if you have not already done so....trust me on this, it works!

Re:How I lost 40 lbs in the last 5 months..

[aXis100]

I agree.

I wanted to lose weight before my wedding (yes, married geeks do exist), so I reduced my calorie intake. 1500 calories a day, and I lost 9 kilos in 6 weeks. It was very rewarding.

Whist I didn't eat alot of fat/sugars before, I used to really bulk up on the carbs - mostly pasta. By cutting my carbs to around 100 grams at dinner, and replacing the bulk with veggies, I was still able to eat great meals. Breakfast was toast, and lunch was usually two rounds of tuna sandwiches.

Basically it was a healthy, balanced diet. The pyramid was probably veggies first, meats, carbs, then fats.

Im still keeping it up to a certain extent, balancing beer and chips with some healthy meals.

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

[gessel]

OK kids, all crap aside, lets go back to basics:

Any energy that goes into your mouth goes one of 3 places:

1) You burn it. Literally - and burning food generates heat. Each gram of fat contains 9 Calories, which is equivalent to jogging for one minute. That's 9000 calories (little c) which will heat your average 200lb sysadmin 0.2 degrees F. There are 27 grams in an ounce - that's a half hour run per ounce of fat. Think about how sweaty that would make you. This is an important thermodynamic consideration we'll get back to.

2) You store it. One gram of fat in becomes one gram of fat on your ass. One gram of carbohydrate or protein in becomes 1/2 gram of fat on your ass. There's no magic here; joules don't vanish.

3) You excrete it. This is what chiral analogs of various energy sources do, such as Olestra. If this was happening, you would know it; the term is anal leakage. Sugars you cannot digest, like the sugars in beans, create equally socially endearing outputs.

Now the article claims that Atkins overclocks the body. Crap. If it did you'd get hot. Run a motor fast, it gets hot. Run your body fast, it gets hot. Take amphetamines, you start to twitch and sweat. Thermodynamics. You can't beat it. Atkins can't beat it. Atkins does not make you hot. If you burned an extra pound of fat you'd heat your body to boiling. It does not accelerate your metabolism, it does not perform any insulin magic. The whole thing is the stunningly ignorant optimism of the hopefully overweight.

But people do lose weight on it - or so it seems (statistically this isn't really borne out by actual controlled studies, but hey, who needs science when we can make choices based on anecdotes). Why? Because in a normal diet 60-70% of your calories come from carbohydrates and you cut them you and you're on a calories restricted diet. Bingo. Eat nothing at all and keep your activity level up and you'll lose about 1/2 pound each day (8.2oz of fat = 2000 calories). Eat more calories than nothing and prorate that weight lose. Joules are joules, they body isn't happy about wasting them, and if it does, bacteria won't and your cube neighbors won't be happy about that.

So much for the insulin magic and ketosis crap, but there's this wacky claim of "satiety " the claim that fat and protein is a high satiety food and that if you eat it, you'll eat less total. Could be. Maybe for some people, not for others. If it works for you, go for it, just don't make magic claims or act like the self-righteous health nuts who claim to Received The Counterintuitive Truth.

As for the health of it all, if you stop eating processed sugars, like every nutritionist including Atkins has been saying for 50 years, you'll generally lose weight, probably a lot of it, and you will be healthier. My mom used to call them "empty calories," but that's too kind. Sugars are bad, and Atkins is right about refined sugar (complex carbohydrates absorb more slowly, "glycemic index" crap aside) - you do tend to crash after (all nutritionists know this). Crash means metabolism temporarily slows. Slow metabolism means less calories burned. Not a lot less - watching TV burns 2.4 calories per minute, walking 2mph burns 2.8 - but a bit less, which means a small difference, a few grams of fat a day maybe. The big difference is eating less sugar - 4.5 Cal per M&M adds up fast.

As for the health of it, if you eat "too much" protein your piss will start to smell weird. If that happens back off. Otherwise it's not likely to kill you. Don't chow down on high saturated fats, the "Atkins helps heart disease" stuff is crap. If you lose weight your cholesterol level will drop, but that doesn't contradict about 50 years of very well documented data showing a direct correlations between saturated fat and heart disease, which strikes thin, otherwise healthy people too.

Skipping fruit is dumb, but it won't kill you if you're eating your veggies. All the vitamins and minerals are in vegetab

My Body Made in Taiwan

[Vagary]

Your body wasn't exactly designed to fly either and yet those big shiny things just keep passing overhead. The whole point of being human is that we get to pickup new cards -- we're not stuck with the shit evolution dealt us.

So if my genetically modified food grown with pesticides and robot tractors makes me fat, then I'll get lyposuction or cybernetic tapeworms or nanobots to break down the fat molecules or whatever other crazy shit my scientists come up with. And I'll remember to laugh at your starving ass when I see you chewing on twigs in the park wearing nothing but a fur loincloth.

Re:My Body Made in Taiwan

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but I just love this post too much not to comment.

Re:My Body Made in Taiwan

[Vagary]

Thank you! That kind of personal touch is way more meaningful than some idiot moderator clicking on little buttons.

Re:Atkins NO effect on your kidneys

[AJWM]

We need a (-1, bullshit) moderation. The above certainly calls for it.

Oh, the last half isn't bad, but the guy has no clue about the Atkins diet.

Mostly right

[WTFmonkey]

When you drop you your calories to that far below maintenance, your body starts storing every damn calorie it can because it thinks you're starving to death. I eat about 3000 calories daily; I guarantee that if I dropped to 1200 calories (it doesn't matter what the food is) I'd start gaining fat and losing muscle mass within a week.

You can lose weight on reduced-calorie diets (NOT ultra-low calorie diets, those are unsafe and ineffective), but as much as 50% will be lean muscle mass, which is not the point of the excercise. It also yo-yos back a lot faster.

So you're right about the reduced carb lifestyle, it does work, and is much safer and more consistent in the long run.

For more information than you'd ever want to know about looking good nekkid, visit Testosterone Magazine. I especially recommend the Ian King 12-week workouts; they'll add inches (!!) to your chest & arms in around 3 months. For those of you just worried about fat loss and not muscle gains, check out the T-Dawg diet. Believe me, though, once the fat starts coming off you'll start seeing how fun it is to watch your body change and you'll be dying to hit the weights.

Re:Mostly right

[ProtonMotiveForce]

Uhh, no. You're not going to gain fat and lose muscle mass on a 1200 calorie diet. At worst, you'd lose muscle and lose fat, but lose muscle at a faster rate than fat which is not good obviously as it decreases your BMR.

Secondly, ultra-low carb diets are a fad. End of story. You're not going to lose 50% lean muscle mass on a reduced calorie diet. In fact, you seem to misunderstant a very simple fact.

Any method you use to lose weight is a reduced-calorie diet. All these fab diets do is shift the ratio of macronutrients one way or another.

Your best bet for a diet is something around 40% protein, 20% far, 40% (low GI) carbs with 2-3 hours of cardio a week and weights 2-3 times a week.

Lastly, Testosterone.net is generally marketing fluff. They occasionally have some good stuff, but they mainly exist to sell their overpriced products.

Re:Mostly right

[WTFmonkey]

You may be right about the uber-low cal diets, God knows I'm too scared of them to experiment. If they worked, everyone that spent their money on crap like SlimFast would be slim, fast. I'd still be willing to bet that my body would start storing fat if I dropped my calories far below maintenace. And you don't need to drop cals to lose fat. Don't get me wrong, since most people eat WAY too many calories in the first place, what should be "normal" for them ends up being a lot less than they're used to and cutting calories is a fabulous idea. So yeah, most people need to cut their caloric intake, but only to a certain point.

For a society raised on corn byproducts and white flour, the best thing you (this is a general "you," don't get defensive) can do is go on a low-carb diet for a while to bitch-slap your insulin response into line. After that, you can bump up the carbs, as long as you do it right (high-GI carbs only after workouts, stick to nutrient-rich, low-GI carbs any other time).

I think the problem is that we're speaking to different groups. I'm long done losing fat, and am now focusing on weight gain. I lift weights. A lot. I do zero "cardio," if by that you mean schlepping along on a treadmill or bike, and I never have. But a good couple sets at the squat rack will have you huffing and puffing just as hard as the treadmill anyways-- so why bother with a seperate cardio session? Cardio should be incidental-- through the occasional game of softball, surfing, or vigorous sex. My best bet for a diet is closer to around 50% fat, and if that means a shotglass of olive oil every night before bed, so be it. So the best I can do is tell you what worked for ME. I credit my initial fat loss to low-carb dieting (not so far as ketosis, though). I still don't eat the carbs that I did when I was younger, but I do allow myself whole-wheat tortillas and the like. Now, however, I've switched to very high fat, adequate protien, and medium-to-high-GI carbs after a lifting session only (which is 4-5 nights per week, so it's not that bad (and I still get to eat my potatos!)).

Of course Testosterone is marketing fluff. Show me a muscle mag that isn't. It's the only way they have to make money. That's why I recommended the Ian King workouts-- consistently effective, especially wave training. If your balls are big enough (mine aren't, yet--this nearly killed me), I also suggest Coach John Davies' "renegade training."

But again, that's what worked for me. Food is only fuel, your mileage may vary.

Re:Mostly right

[Anonymous Coward]

Most non-atkins people eat much less protein than 40%. 50% carbs, 30% fat, 20% protein is common.

Weight Watchers

[tedrlord]

Personally, I think Weight Watchers is a total geek diet. I know most people think of it as mainly for middle-aged women, but it works even better for young guys.

Mainly, the thing I like is that they generalized foods and forms of exercise into a points system, so you can easily figure out how much you need to eat and how much exercise helps. It's like playing a dieting RPG, or something. The best part is that it gives you a really good sense of how much you actually should eat, rather than how much to think you should. You can keep your weight down much more easily that way later on.

Re:Weight Watchers

[tedrlord]

Oh, the best part is that they have a points tracker on their web site with a huge food database, so you can just enter in what you've eaten so far, and it will keep track of it and let you know how much more you should have for the day. Damn useful.

Re:Weight Watchers

[cmpalmer]

I *don't* think Weight Watchers is a good geek diet -- at least for geeks like me who have a real problem with structured authority.

Any diet that says that I absolutely can never, under any circumstances, eat a particular food or that I can only have a ridiculously small portion of said food is a guarantee that I will break the diet.

Having said that, I've been on pseudo-Atkins since April and have lost 42 pounds. I say "pseudo" because I went through induction, stayed almost pure Atkins for 3 or so months, then started eating more carbs in the form of starches, but still avoiding sugars. Since I've lost weight, its easier to exercise now and it its also easier to eat smaller portions.

I don't do the "eat all the fats you want" anymore. You can do this if you are in or around ketosis because your cholesterol won't go up, but if you are eating carbs and lots of fats, it can cause problems.

Having said that, I do have a big fry-up on Sunday mornings, but that's pretty much my whole week of eggs, bacon, and sausage.

My weight loss has slowed, but I haven't gained any back and I barely feel like I'm dieting anymore.

Other pros:

Stopped snoring
Blood pressure lower
Heart rate lower
Sleeping better
New wardrobe

It works

[Hunterdvs]

I've only been on the diet for 2 weeks now, but i'm 10 lbs down. First weight loss in 4 years. Wal-mart sells low-carb atkins brand food, and fellow geeks have been really supportive. I cannot stress enough how mind-blowingly simple it is to lose weight with atkins. Want to know what i've been doing the past 2 weeks? Sitting on my butt playing halo and eating chicken. Now that's a weight-loss plan i can get behind (which has shrunk just a little bit too)!

Just a personal observation...

[Muvlo Redond]

Perhaps it is time for "a good diet" to mean "foods that are helpful for the body", not "weight loss".

How i lost 40+ LBs in less than 8 weeks....

[johnpaul191]

I went Vegan.... NO exercise, ONLY changing what i ate and i dropped ocver 40LBS in less than two months. I had already been vegetarian for about 7 years and hit about 275 when i had enough. About 2 years later i am down to 205 lbs (and 6foot 7inches). after losing the first 50lbs or so i was able to start exercising. Before i dropped that initial weight it was hard to get back in active mode. Once i lost that initial weight, everything fell into place.

Even if i lost 10 lbs i would stick to the "no dairy" plan because it had done more for my asthma and allergies than any meds have in my whole life (i'm 29 now)..... When i was little i was typic sever chronic asthma kid with midnight visits to the E.R. and all that... i could do sports and play but when it hit it hit hard. Till i quit dairy (i was 27, so i didnt outgrow anything) i was going through a rescue inhaler LITERALLY every 2 weeks, and was at the max doses of all the meds i was on. Since quitting dairy (within a month or so) those inhalers now last me about 4 months and i only use them as a precaution before i go out for a run..... 3 years ago a jog to the end of the block would make me wheeeze, now i can run at least 6 miles (my knees hurt around then and i stop)....

I know i'll get flamed for pissing off all the pizza and McDonalds eating nrrds out there, but if you have suffered with asthma, allergies, weight or anything like that you life you know how much it's sucks... try going vegan for at least 2 weeks straight and see if anything happens. I tried it on a whim and was so shocked at how well it worked i am only angry i did not try this sooner.

NOBODY MAKES MONEY FROM YOU GOING VEGAN. It is not a scam.... it gets easier to eat a vegan diet every day. i still eat crappy sugary cereal all the time (with Soy Milk) and french fries and peanut chews and waterice and whatnot, i am not a granola munching hippie. I seriously feel healthier at 29 than i have ever before in my life.

Re:How i lost 40+ LBs in less than 8 weeks....

[Marii]

Same here, I lost 50 lbs in a few months going from vegetarian to vegan. In my case, it was not a wonderful thing.. I was 135lbs, and went down to 85lbs, making me a little underweight for my 5'1" height.. (I'm a chick, by the way) So my advice to anyone switching to vegan, for whatever reason, is to eat *a lot*. You'll deffinitly still lose weight, but it won't get out of hand. Now, I eat like an animal and am pretty comfortably at 100lbs.

Heller & Heller Carb Addict's Diet

[TheRealStyro]

The Heller & Heller Carb Addict's lifestyle diet is basically Atkins with a slight variation. The last time I was on this diet I lost 100 pounds fairly easily. I followed the Atkins intro period then moved into the Carb Addict's routine. Lost 16 pounds in the first 14 days. Added exercise (bike riding) and the weight dropped off like nothing I've ever seen.

Like I wrote earlier, the Carb Addict's diet is very similar to Atkins. The primary difference is the addition of a 'reward' meal. Most of the time you are paying close attention to carbs and carb craving inducing foods. The reward meal lets to have all the carbs you want as long as you balance them with protein and fiber. You can eventually reduce the carbs to minimum and leave the protein and fiber. My variation is to exercise about 30 to 45 minutes after your reward meal. Exercise for as long as you can and whatever you feel is reasonable. I was biking 20 miles in 1:20 (hour:minute) daily (city biking with traffic and other obstacles).

The Heller & Heller Carb Addict's lifestyle diet is a good alternative to Atkins for people that cannot stick to Atkins. Like I wrote, I lost 100 pounds on this diet. Usually 3 to 6 pounds per week (btw, that is far outside the 'safe' range of weight loss per week).

As always, please consult your doctor before starting any diet and/or exercise plans for a clean start, tips and warnings.

Fucking Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Just fuck a lot...like 3-5 times a night and you will be alright...

Atkins = INGSOC

[decimal0]

As James Lileks points out, dubious logo design reveals the true nature of Atkins. (scroll halfway down)

"Winston, wake up. How many breadsticks do you see? Winston!"

Do squats to lose the fat

[bigsexyjoe]

Turn your fat into muscle through weight lifting. By far, the best and most important lift is the squat. You will get strong if and only if you can squat a lot of weight.

Squats cause your body to produce more growth hormone than any other exercise. Growth hormone supresses fat and promotes muscle. When you become more muscular your muscles will consume calories and ultimately get rid of fat.

Forget atkins, it sucks and you must stick with a weight control program for life. Right now, Americans purchase about half as much fruit as the USDA says they should be eating. So eat the right kinds of carbs and burn them off with squats.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[AKAImBatman]

I'm glad to see that *someone* has their head on their shoulders when it comes to Atkins. Now don't get me wrong. If the psychological encouragement that Atkins brings is the only thing that's going to make you loose weight, then by all means. Just PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE get on a balanced, nutritious diet as soon as possible. At the very least, take supplements to counter any nutrient deficiencies.

What's with all the hostility?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Man, here's a Salon article on all these tech-savvy people going on Atkins and it working for them and all the posts on here are just a bunch of naysayers talking trash about the whole thing and going back to the "eat right and exercise" mantra. It's like this in every damn Slashdot story, though, as if everyone in slashdot has to prove that they're such flagrant non-conformists by posting the complete opposite of what the story suggests (No, I'm not new to /.).

Well, back on track, I've tried "exercising and eating right" and it hasn't worked. So I tried Atkins, and I've been on it for 4 1/2 months and have lost 40 pounds. I don't know if I'll balloon back up as people here are suggesting, but I'll try my hardest to keep it off by maybe switching to "eating right and exercising" when I reach my goal weight. As it stands, not everyone on Atkins is a fat disgusting slob who uses the diet as an excuse to eat all the bacon he wants. For some of us, it's the only way that works.

Re:In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic

[csimicah]

Might want to crack a book, there. Turns out that the benefit of an Atkins type diet is NOT a result of restricted calories, according to newish studies. Even when Atkins dieters eat higher calories than non-Atkins dieters, they still lose weight.

but that doesn't contradict about 50 years of very well documented data showing a direct correlations between saturated fat and heart disease,

That data was regarding people on standard diets, not Atkins diets. I don't think it's sound to extrapolate like you did, especially in the face of new studies that show that your assertion is incorrect.

2) You store it. One gram of fat in becomes one gram of fat on your ass. One gram of carbohydrate or protein in becomes 1/2 gram of fat on your ass. There's no magic here; joules don't vanish.

Guess what! When you're in ketosis your body burns fat in an inefficient manner that only generates about 7 kcal/gram. No, the 2 calories don't vanish nor do they come out of your butt; they come out of your pee pee hole, also known as your "no no place" or simply your "dignity".

easy anti-craving strategies

[js7a]

Look, whenever you get cravings, drink two or three glasses of water and wait a few minutes. Chances are, the cravings will be displaced. Other things with which to displace cravings:

• celery -- you actually lose weight eating celery
• lettuce -- lots of bulk, practically no calories
• turnips
• radishes
• watermelon
• rice cakes

Go back and read what you wrote, Tablizer -- you say you want to live without constant hunger, but what you obviously really want is to satisfy your cravings with food sufficiently unlike "cardboard." What you probably mean by that is that you want plenty of sugars, starches, oils, and varied textures. That isn't anti-misery, that is a matter of raised caloric expectations. You can train yourself away from that in a week if you can muster the willpower.

Re:easy anti-craving strategies

[Tablizer]

rice cakes

Oh gaaaawwwd! Those fill you up for about 3 minutes.

You can train yourself away from that in a week if you can muster the willpower.

"The cravings will go away in a week" claims have generally been proven FALSE. Besides, what happens if you go on a business lunch, and the restaraunt does not have such rabbit food. Does it all revert back and you are at square-one again?

My mom used to say the same thing, but we caught her sneaking some donuts that my dad left on the table. She is a hypocrit, like you. All talk. Craving for yummy foods is hard-wired.

Re:easy anti-craving strategies

[Anitra]

Craving for yummy foods is hard-wired.

I totally agree. Cravings are here to stay. But just because you crave something, doesn't mean that has to be a staple of your diet.

I've been on the Hacker's Diet (more or less) for 4 months now. I'm a chick, so I crave chocolate and sweets. I try to ignore my cravings if I've already met my caloric goal for the day; but if I can't resist, I have some. Note that word: some. If it's brownies, I limit myself to one, not three or four, no matter how good they taste. If they're really awesome, maybe I can take some home with me for tomorrow or the next day. With ice cream, I used to measure out a certain amount - 1/2 cup to 1 cup - and then I would NOT let myself eat any more of it.

I've already lost about 20 pounds, and it's still dropping. I rarely feel deprived, but sometimes I do overeat. When that happens, I just buck up and eat a little less the next day. I actually feel hungry when I eat my meals, and they satisfy me more than they ever did before. Best of all, I now have the willpower to say "Only one, please."

MOD PARENT UP +1 INSIGHTFUL

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:IT AINT ****** EASY!

[waveman]

"Don't be such a fucking baby. Run a consistent daily caloric deficit and your stomach will adjust within a few weeks."

People vary tremendously in their metabolisms. You are one of the lucky ones.

For many people, if they run a caloric deficit what happens is:

- They feel hungry all the time

- Mental functioning is impaired, with up to 15 IQ points impact, so it can be hard to do your job well, and to manage relationships effectively

- Energy levels decline as your body adapts to 'famine' conditions

- You feel cold all the time

- As you approach your ideal weight it gets harder and harder

- It gets worse over a period of weeks

Our bodies are built to hoard food for a famine that - these days - never comes. For some people, mobilising fat stores is very difficult. Atkins had some patients who could not lose weight on 1,000 calories a day.

The arrogance of people who can easily control their weight is built on ignorance and luck. The body ADAPTS to low calorie intake; it is not a passive store of calories.

In my case I have found something that works, but it requires getting a lot of things exactly right. It is by no means easy. When I was younger it was easy but after age 25-30 the degree of difficulty just goes up and up.

Wait, wait. protein + fiber != hacker food groups

[JoeGee]

I thought the four food groups were:

Caffeine

Chocolate

Take Out

Microwavable

In all seriousness, this is one hacker who recently bought the Atkins book and is preparing himself to try the "lifestyle", but so often sustenance is basically what is available quick and easy. Food that requires thought or preparation doesn't fit in well with the groove you can find yourself in when you're working on an intense project.

Going for a quick fix you really miss out

[nomadicGeek]

Let's just start by saying that I don't believe in the Atkins diet. While you may lose weight while you are on it, I think that you are doing damage to your body for short term gain (not weight gain). There is plenty of evidence out there to support that claim. Many of the other posts probably cover it better than I could. I would like to live a long and healthy life and I think that you have to be careful how you do things when you are younger because there will eventually be a price paid for abusing your body.

I guess I have struggled with my weight as much as the next geek. I remember seeing my college graduation pictures and being appalled by how bad I looked. My face was pale, I had a little double chin action starting, and I had milk titties with a paunch that hung over my belt. My posture was bad as well. In short, I looked like shit and I felt like shit. Any kind of physical exertion like climbing up a few flights of stairs made me feel ill.

I've found the best approach is to eat a balanced diet consisting of protein, carbs (tending toward goods with a low glycemic index and trying to stay away from processed sugars), unsaturated fat, and fiber combined with exercise. I split my exercise between weights and cardio.

When I first started to work out, I hated it. I was always sore for a couple of days after weights and the cardio always made me want to puke. I felt awkward being in the gym because I didn't know what I was doing but after a couple of months I really started to enjoy it. My body got used to exercising and I was reading some books and magazines to figure out what to do. Once you get into it there are so many rewards.

Weight lifting is more difficult than it looks. How you do it determines the gains that you make and how likely you are to hurt yourself. Technique is the key and it takes a while to learn. I'm to the point now where I set goals for things like squats, dead lifts, and bench press. I work out the plan and then work hard to get there. It's like learning a new scripting language or maybe picking up Linux for the first time. When you first start you don't know what the hell you are doing. After a while you become a pro. Now I'm not a big muscle head, my body is just better proportioned. My shoulders are wider than my love handles, my chest is wider, and I have better posture. I just look better overall. I've also noticed that a lot of nagging aches and pains have gone away. My lower back feels good. I also have an injured shoulder that is going much better now that I have built up a little muscle around it.

I started running for cardio. My goal was to finish a half marathon. It was something to focus on and judge my progress against. I still do a half marathon every year but I decided that running is not my thing. I've taken up cycling and love it. Just like weights, I set goals to keep things interesting. I started out by signing up for an 860 mile trek from Miami to Tallahassee, FL. I worked out a plan of the number of miles a week that I wanted to ride and did two 100 mile rides the two weekends before the ride. I'm planning a cross country ride in 2007 (why set small goals). I enjoy the cycling on a lot of levels. I get to see a lot of places that I normally wouldn't see. I've met a lot of really cool people. It also clears my mind. I can't tell you how many times I have been frustrated with a technical problem, taken an hour off to cycle, and then come back and knocked it out. I also really enjoy the physical challenge and pushing myself to do things that I wouldn't have imagined that I could do a few years ago.

I probably sound a little like a zealot here but I can't imagine going back to living the way I used to. I'm happier, healthier, and more energetic.

I think that if you are now where I used to be years back, I would seriously consider a sensible balanced diet and find some physical activities that you enjoy. If you do it right, it can be very physically, intellectually, and spiritual

Do not confuse "pedophile" with "child molester."

[Anonymous Coward]

Attraction to men, women, children, animals, vegetables, and/or minerals does not necessarily entail fucking them. Given Slashdot's demographic audience, one would expect this to be common knowledge.

funy excerpt from Hacker's diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunger is a command, not a request. Hunger is looking at your dog curled up sleeping on the rug and thinking, "I wonder how much meat there is beneath all that fur?"

YAY! Excersizing Nerds!

[slappyjack]

I can't agree more with your post. Atkins is a great way to mess up your system, just like all diets where the goal is to lose weight, not eat healthy.

Even though this is something we should all know: live moderately.

One thing you forgot to mantion about cardio workouts:
I've put together some nice little solutions to development problems in my head while in that state of mental blankity you get in the middle of a good hard run/bike/stairclimb/walk/whatever.

Plus, with a few good sessions a week, your ass will start to look FANTASTIC.

Re:YAY! Excersizing Nerds!

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful now. I think that you lose karma for talking about another gentleman's ass on /.

Moon waffles

[ThenAgain]

Look. If this means I can't have any more of Homer's patented, space-age, out-of-this-world Moon Waffles (a bag of caramels, waffle batter and liquid smoke cooked on a waffle iron and then wrapped around a stick of butter), then I'm not interested.

Low carb diet leads to mystery skin blisters?

[Yeechang Lee]

On 6 Oct I posted this to Usenet:

On 24 August I began an Atkins diet and since have been keeping it quite faithfully. (For the record, I'm still in induction, as I plateaued after losing a grand total of 5-6 pounds, but then at 6'1" and 200 pounds I'm not very far from where I should be anyway.)

Beginning the second week of September my back began breaking out in large, symmetrical clusters of red bumps that turned into blisters that contain a fair amount of pus. At first I ignored them figuring they'd go away. However, they haven't. They've steadily worsened the past couple of weeks, and are now spreading to the area below my armpits. A few have appeared on my chest and neck. They all itch like crazy, especially in the initial stages.

I went to my general physician today, who upon seeing my back immediately had me see the head of the dermatology group. The dermatologist was also mystified (enough to summon two of his colleagues for consultation), but has ruled out hives, insect bites (due to the blisters' symmetrical nature), and anything contagious. He figures it's one of a family of conditions with immunological causes ("IPA" was mentioned during the dermatologists' discussions while examining me, I believe), perhaps globules of some kind. We'll know more once results of the biopsy he took comes back later this week and through next week.

Meanwhile, I of course can't help but to speculate on possible causes. I work in an office environment and have not traveled. The only skin problems I've had before are acne and, last year, a diagnosis of tinea versicolor that has long since been completely treated with Nizoral shampoo. I live alone and no one else has used my bedsheets.

The only recent change in my lifestyle has been the Atkins. It's fair to say bacon (especially precooked) is a large portion of my diet right now, along with pepperoni slices, mozzerella string cheese, pork rinds, and almonds. For lunch I have a steak and a salad.

I know ordinary bacon is frowned upon by Atkins devotees due to the nitrate content, but haven't seen any mention of nitrates causing the kinds of symptoms I'm seeing. Is there something else in my diet that could be causing what I am experiencing?

Since I wrote the above, I've gotten off Atkins. The possibility of the diet causing the skin problems was a reason, of course, but it was primarily because I was getting frustrated at not being able to move beyond the 5-6 pound loss plateau in the 6 weeks I was in induction.

The biopsy proved inconclusive. Fotunately, my skin has been clearing up well, with no particular treatment used; the only reminders are dark pigmentation patches in the affected areas, and they'll presumably go away soon. Still, I'd be curious to hear whether others have experienced what I went through.

Re:Low carb diet leads to mystery skin blisters?

[Arthur Dent]

Your symptoms sound similar to what a few low-carbers experience. Basically, what happens is that on a high carbohydrate diet, in addition to the bacteria colonizing your gut, yeast take up residence there too. When you go on a low-carb diet, the yeast start to die and the toxins released as they die produce a skin rash.
Google for 'Candida' and 'low carb'.

Oh, the irony!

[bert_mcdoy]

The quote at the end of the page...

Fat people of the world unite, we've got nothing to lose!

Thats just hilarious!

Re:You're a homosexual

[Anonymous Coward]

You're funny. Why do you care so much about what other people do to get their kicks? Thinking of trying it yourself, but too embarassed to admit it?

Stupid is as stupid does

[MasTRE]

"..because utilizing low-carb methods to modify the metabolism is analogous to hacking and overclocking the body."

More like being retarded. Like the guy who's fine with his box crashing 2-3 times a day as long as he _knows_ it's oc'ed to the max. Your body will crash too - there is no magic. The difference is that Atkins, when he was alive, marketed for profit his unsafe body overclocking methods that could seriously fuck you up for life, whereas frying a Barton will only hurt your pocket the average monthly salary of a chinese factory worker making the motherboard you fried it on.

Personal results with Atkins

[LookSharp]

Granted that the plural of anecdote is NOT data (as snopes.com loves to tell you), I wanted to give the results of four web/Unix geeks where I work. This is going to sound like an infomercial, but all I can do is give you what I've got, and let you decide if I'm honest or not. Hopefully my low UID and post history will help convince you that I'm sincere.

My buddy, late 30s, lost 35 lbs his first six weeks. One colleague lost 65lbs in 6 months (early 40s), and a guy in his late 20s lost 70lbs in 6 months. So I joined up-- I have been on for eight weeks (I'm 28), and have lost 38lbs (from 262 to 224) so far, following Atkins' New Diet Revolution. That includes going from a 44 inch waist to 38. In two months, without excercise (yet.)

Basically, the Atkins Diet is like a cult of people who cut almost all of the sugars and starches out of their diet. Permanently, if done correctly. I also cut caffeine out (what a hellish 36 hours withdrawal/hangover that was!)-- not required by "The Diet" but I found it helpful. I call it a cult because you have to continually remind yourself and/or your Atkins Buddies that they're doing well, and steer them clear of carby foods. This often means randomly annoying strangers by picking up food containers and looking at them increduously when you look at the labels. For instance, a small bottle of Cranberry juice has 49 carb grams in it; enough for 2.5 days worth on Atkins' Induction phase.

Here are my pros/cons list:

-Pro: I find that I fall asleep/wake up better, and feel "regulated" throughout the day. I do not have post-lunch lag, or groggy mornings where I "need" coffee/Code Red.

-Con: You need to be creative with your food selection and menu planning. You can eat plenty of junk food, as long as you are getting sugar-free candy and soda, and eat stuff like Beef Jerky and Pork Rinds for snacks. You can and should eat the green vegetables specified, in the amounts specified in the book.

-Pro: You are losing weight, especially in the early weeks, enough to look in the mirror and tell the difference. Especially those of us who are fat around the face.

-Con: You need to supplement your diet with vitamins and PLENTY of water. The Diet dehydrates you. I personally find myself drinking somewhere in the neighborhood of a gallon of plain water every day, because I literally feel that thirsty. You also need to make sure you are getting enough fiber, or you will get constipated. The good news is that many sugar-free candies are loaded with non-digestable plant fibers which will take care of that... and much worse if you overdo it!

-Pro: Your total cholesterol goes down. "Good cholesterol" goes up. This is only if you are doing the diet right. The FUDders like to spew that "there's no way so much meat and cheese can be healthy for you." Bullshit. If you're doing it right, your body is metabolizing what you eat, and you are pissing away (literally) your weight through lipolysis-- the breaking down of your stored fat cells. You don't have to skip bacon and eggs, but you also can't eat greasy, saturated-fatty foods for every component of every meal.

-Con: You eventually start to plateau on your weight loss. At this point, if you're not already doing this, it's time to start excercising regularly to kick-start your CV system and calorie burn.

The final con is that about 2/3rd of the population is going to accuse you of eating "unnaturally" or foods that are "unhealthy." Franky, I think they are full of shit. Of the dozen or so people I know that have read the book and implemented it to spec, EVERY ONE has lost between 15 and 30 lbs in the first month. Not a one has had negative health effects with the possible exception of some constipation (not enough fiber/water). The trick is staying on the diet, monitoring your blood sugars and cholesterol level with your doctor, and taking the mindset that The Diet is a whole change in lifestyle, not just a quikc solution to kick 20lbs.

Re:Personal results with Atkins

[Arthur Dent]

Another observation I can't decide to classify as a Pro or a Con:

Pro/Con: Eating any candy/sugar/cake gives you the most god-awful sugar rush!
The raging hunger that follows the crash is definitely a con :)

I read the same article...

[drinkypoo]

And I wrote this: (Note that it is from E2 and I didn't remove any of the [.*] or [.*|.*] so it looks funky. To see it in all its glory, visit Atkins Diet (thing). Of course, PLEASE BE GENTLE, as e2 can't take much of a beating. Some formatting is lost here, but all in all everything comes out okay due to HTML's very nature; any unsupported tags, when ignored, should have the minimal effect on readability.

The Atkins Diet, also known as the [ketogenic diet], is a four-stage low-[carbohydrate] [diet] which uses the bodily state of [ketosis] in order to provide [weight loss] and weight [management]. Invented by Dr. [Robert Atkins], this contraversial diet plan has nonetheless helped many people lose weight.

"They lose the weight, they feel fine, then they get to their goal weight and they still have 60 more years to live, and are they going to go hungry for all 60 years?"
Dr. Robert Atkins ([1931]-[2003]) to [CNN] on diets which restrict [caloric] intake

This diet (and variations thereof) is frequently used to treat [seizure]s as it reduces [blood] [glycogen] levels, making the brain somewhat immune to seizure [trigger]s. While on this diet, one depends on [fat]s for energy rather than carbohydrates. As a result, you find yourself eating salad without [crouton]s, but with a ton of [blue cheese] dressing. Like most diets, one drinks a great deal of water, in this case to avoid damage to the [liver] and [kidney]s due to ketosis.

[ketosis|K][ketosis|ETOSIS]

While avoiding [supersession] of such other [factual]s as [ketosis], no description of the Atkins Diet is complete without at least briefly covering the highest and lowest points of [ketosis], at least as it relates to this diet. Firstly, ketosis is a desirable [state] because it causes your body not to store fat when consumed, and also reduces your body's tendency to consume [muscle] as [fuel]. Since ketosis is induced by consuming a minimum of carbohydrates, your body has nowhere to turn for energy beyond the [fat]s you take in, and the fats stored in your body.

On the down side, the reduced levels of [insulin] can make you tired, though for most this passes in the first couple of weeks. It also increases stress on your [liver] and [kidney]s, which is the reason for the increased water intake. And it increases calcium loss, necessitating a greater calcium intake.

[Dietician]s (and others) frequently confuse ketosis with [ketoacidosis], a dangerous state which can be deadly in those with [diabetes]. Put simply, the pH of the blood becomes lower than normal because of increasing acidity due to ketones. If your body is not processing its waste properly, this state can come about. Thus the use of this diet is not recommended to those who require [dialysis].

STAGES

The four steps of the Atkins diet are:

1. Induction: During this phase one consumes 20g (or less) of [carbohydrate]s per day. This is exceptionally difficult due mostly to unnecessary addition of sugar to nearly everything one eats, especially in the [USA]. Even ostensible meat products like [beef] [jerky] tend to be loaded with sugar; most hot dogs are filled with carbohydrate-based fillers. One continues with this step until one has nearly reached their target weight.
   During the onset of this stage, in the first week or so, most people will lose a fair amount of weight due to simple water loss. This should not be mistaken for actual weight loss, as it will be regained immediately if one returns to normal dietary process. It is unlikely that anyone will lose more than twenty pounds this way; using the atkins diet to lose twenty pounds is closely akin to using a [backhoe] to dig a [post hole] -- in other words, [overkill].
2. Ongoing Weight Loss: During this phase one

Re:I read the same article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks a lot for linking to e2. Now I'll be there all day (again). =P

Not a real hacker?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it mean I'm not a real hacker anymore if I'm not grossly overweight and sit on my ass all day? My BMI is like 19 (or lower), and I exercise regularly. If anything, I need to put on some weight (I think my current state of scrawniness is a result of my years in cross country/track). Where are the diets out there that are supposed to help me?

Re:Not a real hacker?

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, you're still a real hacker, so long as you can teh occasional man ham.

Atkins is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I eat no meat or vegies. I live on sugar and bread and almost never move from my room. I'm very thin.

i'm still on atkins

[two_tone]

i'm 27 yrs old and after i got married in august i started the atkins and so far have lost 35lbs

Re:What were we eating then? [OTish]

[cduffy]

As far as why you're a foe, I couldn't tell you. But I trust my own judgment. I often mark as foes people whose opinions on hot issues I find to be irreconcilable with my own.

Just because I occasionally jump into a discussion on a topic I don't know (like this one) doesn't mean that opinions I may offer on topics I do know is less authoritative. But then, of course, perhaps that's just the sort of thing you may be usefully flagging via "Foe". *shrug*.

Hopefully my contribution to this discussion as a whole has been more useful (by eliciting your counterpoints) than counterproductive (by publicly espousing a position contradicted by evidence).

I have a bridge for sale

[Easy2RememberNick]

Just in case some of you have not been paying attention:

Cigarettes don't cause cancer.
The Atkins Diet doesn't harm your kidneys.
Scientology is a religion.
Downloading music/movies is not illegal.

Re:In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic

[gessel]

Might want to drop the fanaticism there. Check the studies again. The best there are say you lose weight just like on any restricted calorie diet. Like all things in this arena, some studies show conflicting data, but that doesn't make it right yet.

WRT heart disease, there's nothing magic about the Atkins diet. There are peoples on earth (generally rotund Eskimos for example) who eat diets like it, and people who eat the opposite (generally skinny consumers of Asiatic diets). Across all, more saturated fat makes more heart attacks. Look, if you and the other fanatics keep this up for 50 years or so, and if you all end up dying less, I'll believe it. Until then there's no good reason to, all exiting data points against it.

Re: the mystical powers of ketosis: guess what - the energy is in the fat, not how you consume it. If you wee'd out a highly energetic fatty urine, you'd sure know it. Either the energy is burned, excreted, or stored. Energetic molecules do not make it through your kidney, unless you've got serious problems.

What you mean to say is that the body is only able to extract about 75% of the energy available in the fat, the rest goes to thermodynamic inefficiency due to an alternate metabolic pathway. That's a fine argument and there may even be cases where there's some truth to it... maybe... but basic thermodynamics still applies - inefficiency means heat. You still burn the calories, you just don't get to store them. You do not pee them out.

Furthermore, what you're saying is that one gram of fat becomes heats 2kg of body weight 1 degree plus 7/9 of a gram of fat. Gram for gram, if you're correct, carbohydrate would still be less fattening (and protein slightly less still).

Look, go for it dude. If you believe, more power to you, but stop claiming that you've discovered the holy grail. You're on a diet, neither more nor less well founded or scientific than grapefruit or whatever. Not yet anyway. Collect some data and good luck. For me, I'll stick to eating a well balanced meal and getting regular exercise. It's working fine so far.

three quotes

[crabpeople]

"Modern civilization is THE TESTAMENT to the triumphs of technology over "Mother Nature"."

See the problem with that is mother nature is a bitch with a memory that makes your wife/gf look like an amnesiac. you think the raping of virtually every place (save the deep ocean, and more than a few km underground) is a triumph? shes already fighting back. Just this year the west coast has been hit with horrible fires the likes of which never occured before. personally i think we will run out of fresh (non poluted) water, before anything.

"All because we say "FUCK YOU!" and flip the finger to Mother Nature, and we try to take an active control over our destiny."

ah the american(tm) way. Problem is, (as cpt picard said) that kind of control is an illusion. I would much rather work in a symbiotic relationship with nature than try and fight her. even if you fight mother nature and win, you still loose because your dead.. or living in a bubble on mars or something.

"Fact is, evolution is NOT, NOT an intentional, planned affair, as your second sentence implies (and upon which your entire argument depends). Evolution produces, in each generation, an organism that can thrive in a range of possibile scenarios."

So if the future is not a "planned afair", how can you possibly control it? I would love to see how you deal with a nuclear disaster and the following 100+ odd years of societal ruin. but of course you'll probably be 'evolved' out by the guy with the can opener.

"Conditional changes occur in nature all the time that put organisms into environments that differ from the conditions under which those organisms evolved... in fact, that's what CAUSES evolution. They don't always deal well with it, but they thrive often enough."

the problem is we have reached a point where societies/people/cultures can change the direction of evolution. be it by nuclear war, famine, plague or just greed. when some group (intentionally or otherwise) decides what should evolve, thats not nature, then i think thats a problem.

the american/western world has only been around MAX 200 years. you think it will last another 200 with that attitude?

atkins and the Joy of Life

[botono9]

But what about beer? Beer! BEER!

Re:atkins and the Joy of Life

[cmpalmer]

Michelob Ultra - tastes like beer flavored carbonated water, but it only has 2 or 3 grams of carbs. Actually, most "light" American beers have less than 4 grams.

I've drank beer and wine while on pseudo-Atkins without problems. The main problem with alcohol consumption is that it lowers your willpower. After a few glasses of wine, that garlic bread starts looking real good.

Worked for me

[plazman30]

I did Atkisn for over a year and lost about 100 pounds on it. The whole time I was monitored by my doctor and my blood chemistry improved DRAMATICALLY. If you've never been on Atkins and have NEVER EVEN read the book, then I would say, SHUT THE HELL UP, before you go and make comments about this diet.

Sure you eat more fat and protein than the average guy, but NOWHERE does Atkins tell you to go and deep fry everything you eat, or cut all veggies out of your diet. And he STRESSES beyond anything else to take vitamin supplements because he says it is an UNBALANCED DIET and you have to get yourself IN BALANCE once you get to your goal weight. That's where you start the maintenance phase.

The hardest part of the diet for any geek would be the complete lack of caffeine on the diet.

late to the party...

[night_flyer]

Ive been on atkins since last february, lost the 35 lbs I was aiming for. in that time, Ive stopped snoring, I no longer have heartburn, I sleep better, I have more energy, my teeth are cleaner, my blood pressure is in the perfect range, and my skin is in better shape.

I have added a few carbs back into my diet, but I watch everything I eat.

Easy

[MarkusQ]

"The metabolocally skinny"? Give me a break. You could make just as strong a case for individual differences in the desire to rape and pillage.

I challenge you to do so.

You may find it difficult to do so. Studies of seperated-at-birth twins, for example, strongly support the idea that genetics is far and away the most important factor in determining one's body weight and other health indicators.

Easy. Look at the same studies you cite. The genetic links are just as strong for many psycological traits, including tollerence for violence (in movies, and presumably in real life). For that matter, the enjoyment of both rape and pillage are strongly sex linked. But this does not mean that all men are doomed to rape and pillage, even those with unmet twins doing hard time in sing-sing. It is possible to refrain from burning down your rivals home, no matter how much you might enjoy seeing it burn, or jumping a girl just because she's cute & you are horny.

I am not saying that there isn't a genetic component. I am saying that the fact should not be construed to in any way diminish individual responsibility.

-- MarkusQ

Just F*ing Exercise Already

[mhotas]

Make your peace with exercise. It doesn't take much. Make it a habit, get your heart rate up for 20 min or so 3 times a week. Everything else will follow.

www.Fitday.com

[Anonymous Coward]

How about fitday for supplementing the hacker's diet? Is it accurate?

Sorry It just won't work with geek food.

[ratfynk]

I tried making a "low carb" pizza, what a friggin' mess. Nothin' but cheese, tomato sauce and pepperoni all over my keyboard. Worse than pRon surfing! My mouse rebelled as well.

It's a matter of habit

[harlows_monkeys]

Weight control is a simple matter of physics: if you take in more than you use, you gain weight. Take in less, you lose weight.

Because of this, diets do not work. They can lower you weight while you are on the diet, but when you go off the diet, you gain it back, unless you've also increased your exercise.

What you need to do is make a permanent change. I did that once. I came up with a set of foods that I liked, and could cook myself, that would cover my nutritional needs, and then I got in the habit of making my own meals using those foods rather than grabbing junk food. I also increased my exercise. It worked. I lost over a hundred pounds, and it stayed off. In fact, I was able to throw in some junk food (fries and a shake a few nights a week at the Caltech coffeehouse while playing cards with friends), and still keep the wieght off.

Alas, I eventually moved to a new job, with a startup, where we had crazy hours, and I was too tired to cook, and so my habits changed to pizza and drive throughs, and less exercise, and so now I'm a fat blob again.

The thing to ask yourself when considering any diet is whether or not you could stick to that diet forever, because otherwise, any weight loss is going to be temporary.

My two cents.

[bakuretsu]

I am not a dietician, or a nutrition scientist, but I do have a lot of first-hand experience in the area of food, diet, weight loss, and all of this business.

First of all, there is no such thing as a fad diet that works. "Fad" diet means some set of wacky rules about what you are allowed to eat and what you aren't. They don't work. None of them.

You will see results with the Atkins diet, and then you will gain all of the weight back. Most people do. It's great if you want to lose weight really fast for that senior prom in two weeks, or to fit back into your favorite snazzy dress for some dinner party, but don't think for a moment that the Atkins diet is a life-altering experience.

Here is an article, written by a doctor no less, which should shed some light on the way Atkins works and why it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Dr. Atkins, Not A Wellness Promoter.

In the words of none other than Ozzy Osbourne's doctor (as seen on his ridiculous reality show), the only diet that works is to "eat what you want to satisfaction". Don't overeat. Eat until you're satisfied, and then stop. Eat five smaller meals a day instead of three (or, for a lot of people, two) huge ones.

Exercise. USE your body. Go outside and throw a ball around, it doesn't have to be three solid hours of hardcore treadmill jogging, or cycling seven miles in a row. If you find enjoyment in that, great, if not, don't do it!

When you get hungry, eat something. When you're done, stop. If you want a cookie, have one. Nothing good can come from denying yourself food of any kind. If you force yourself not to have those "forbidden" foods, you WILL crave them more and more until you snap and eat too much. There are studies to support this. This is another good reason why "fad" diets do not work.

Try to maintain a varied diet. Eat different things, experiment, don't force yourself into a routine of foods that you have decided are "safe." There is no such thing as bad food, only bad quantities of food. Surely, saturated fats and "trans fats" and these other types of chemicals aren't great for you, but they aren't going to turn you into a whale if you eat a little.

Snack. Have a few healthy snacks each day, it helps to keep you satisfied. A healthy snack might be fruit, it might be a granola bar, it could be a candy bar, it all depends on what you want, how many calories you burn in a day, and what your goals are. I think yogurt is a good snack. Don't worry about what's in it. Stop reading labels.

You can LOSE WEIGHT by following these basic instructions. You can also KEEP IT OFF if you make this your lifestyle. Arnold Schwarzenegger used to say that fitness is a lifestyle (I think he got it from someone else). So is nutrition.

Dr. Atkins is another person who found a way for people to lose weight quickly, probably at the cost of their long-term health. Why? Because he made a few million dollars doing it. Americans spend approximately $33 billion a year on weight-loss programs. Find a way to shave a few pounds off someone and you can tap that cash cow. No pun intended.

I don't want to get into the psychology of our culture and the unneccesary pressures we put on [especially] women to lose weight, but if you want to take off a few pounds, don't do it by giving more of your money to some quack. A dead quack, I might add.

The average nerd is fat?

[ftzdomino]

Is this truly the typical scenario? Most of the nerds I know are under 180 lbs. I would have to assume that the proportion of overweight nerds is the same as in the general population.

Re:IT AINT ****** EASY!

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest reading The Hacker's Diet, it has some good information and makes a very important point-- it all comes down to thermodynamics.

Yes, people have different metabolisms, but the essential truth is that you will lose weight if you eat less than you burn. Yes, there will be unpleasant side effects (feeling hungry, cold, dopey, etc.) That's why John Walker says "Losing weight isn't pleasant, and it's far better to get it over with quickly, and never have to do it again."

The energy you use has to come from somewhere, and if you don't eat the calories and you do exercise, it has to come from fat stores.

Perhaps Atkins had patients who couldn't lose weight while only eating 1000 calories a day, but if so, the fact must remain that they weren't burning more than 1000 calories a day. It's thermodynamics, folks. You can engineer your weight.

Quick and Vital Tip:

[Razzak]

Be careful. Really. If you eat a lot of protien and no carbs you can seriously damage your liver. That's a bad thing.

You'll gain it back in three years

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at the testimonials you see for Atkins and other diets -- they're usually along the lines of "I've been on it for X months and I've lost Y pounds so far". When's the last time you saw one that said "I was on it four years ago and I'm at the same weight now that I was when I went off it"?

Studies show 95% of people who lose weight through dieting gain it all back in 3 years. If you screw up your metabolism enough on a crazy diet, you may gain back even more.

Rapid weight loss diets, and yo-yo weight changes damage the heart. Modern arguments are that it's healthier to stay fat than to yo-yo.

The best things you can do for your health are to eat healthy and exercise. Whether that makes you thin or not is not as important as what your blood chemisty is.

Think about it: if there were any diets that actually worked -- that is, that actually caused significant permanent weight loss -- it wouldn't be a secret or a fad. Everyone would go on it, one time, and then everyone would be thin. We'd all know about it. But that hasn't happened, has it? Weight-loss is a hugely lucrative industry. These people make money by getting you to buy books or other products that you believe will help you lose weight -- and then they get to sell you new ones 2 or 3 years from now!

Educate yourself.

Check out http://www.fatso.com and http://www.naafa.org

Way to go.. starve yourself of the sugars...

[sudog]

... your brain needs to work. Might as well open up the job market for the rest of us.

The green nectar...

[MsGeek]

Diet Mountain Dew. Gift of the Geek Gods. I have no trouble finding it here in Los Angeles. Walk into most stores and it's right there ready to assimilate. I drink diet not only because I want to keep away from simple sugars but also because I have drunk diet soda for so long the regular stuff tastes like chugging a bottle of Karo Syrup to me now.

If you can't get it out your way, here's a link to someone who'll ship: http://store.yahoo.com/drsoda/dietmtdew.html.

Share and Enjoy!

Re:IT AINT ****** EASY!

[waveman]

"I suggest reading The Hacker's Diet, it has some good information and makes a very important point-- it all comes down to thermodynamics. "

I have read it. It is an excellent book. He admits though, as you would know from reading it, that the program does not necessarily work for everyone.

If you only eat 1,00 calories a day, you must lose weight or reduce energy consumption. It is by no means inevitable that you will lose weight.

It is not *simply* a matter of thermodynamics. The human body and brain are adaptive systems that actively attempt to oppose changes such as weight loss. That is why over 90% of people who succeed in losing substantial amounts of weight, put it back on within a year or two.

Saying that weight loss is as simple as "eat less, exercise more" is like saying anyone can get an advanced degree in math by studying harder.

No longer hungry? Full?

[Valiss]

Gichin Funakoshi, the founder of Shotokan Karate and avid philosopher, always remarked that you should eat until you are no longer hungry, not until you are full. I've noticed that as an American, I always heard "clean your plate" and other such fat-inducing statements growing up. Thinking about how you feel as you eat is more important than how much is left on your plate.

Adkins as an Endurance Athlete

[ka6wke]

I've been on Atkins for the last 6 months. Total weight loss - 38 pounds. Now, I'm not what you'd consider an overweight person. I'm male, 6' tall and weighed 215 pounds. I'm also an avid distance runner for the last 23 years. A typical workout schedule for a week is:

Mon: Off
Tue: 8 miles AM
Wed: 5 miles tempo
Thu: 8 miles
Fri: 5 miles speed or hillwork
Sat: 5 miles easy
Sun: 2 hour trail runs at 6000+ feet about 15 miles

When I was on my old way of eating, high carbs, low fat, I was gaining weight at around 2 pounds every 6 months. No matter what I did, count calories, fat calories, grapefruit diet, double my weekly mileage, etc - nothing worked. I also had some serious gastrointestinal problems. Everynight I'd get woken up with a flood of acid racing up my esophagus. I couldn't sleep more than 2 hours at a time because I'd wake up in pretty serious hip, back and shoulder joint pain. I'm only 36 and I felt like I was 60! I could never get enough sleep, 10 hours in bed was just not enough.

My Dr recommended Atkins, and when I first read about it, I thought he was an instant quack. I decided to give it a try anyway - WTF. Lost 11 pounds my first week, 14 pounds after 2 weeks induction. Now, I did have some adaptation to do with my running. After being on Atkins for about 3 weeks, I was out on my normal Wed run. I stopped after about 2 miles in complete pain - severe cramps in my legs. It took over an hour to walk back to my truck. Well, I needed to take vitamins. I never really liked taking vitamins, but started anyway. After taking them for a few days, leg cramps went away.

Today, I have no problems running even longer distances than before. All the gastro problems are gone, and no more night time joint pain. I can sleep through the night without any of the above problems. I usually get between 6 and 7 hours per night, and that's all I feel I need. Since taking the vitamins, the leg cramps are gone. Running the longer distance would leave me totally wiped out on my old eating plan, and craving some serious carbs post workout. On Atkins, that doesn't happen. My recovery from hard/long workouts seem much faster than before, and I have no more cravings for carbs afterwards. Instead of spending the rest of Sunday afternoon in bed sleeping, I'm out working around the house, chasing the kids, or whatever. Don't need that much rest anymore. It's been well worth it for me.

The hardest part about Atkins is changing your cooking habits. That took about 6 weeks to really get a handle on. I usually plan breakfasts and lunches for the week, cooking what I need on Sunday night. My wife supports me 100%, and makes sure dinner follows the plan.

Our children are benefiting as well. My oldest is like his father, weight gain around the middle. Our middle child has slight ADD, and our younges was prone to extreme tantrums and outbursts. My wife and I simply eliminated white sugar, and limit white flour food, and the transformation has been tremendous! Our oldest has not gained as much weight in the last 6 months, but continues to get taller. He's looking trimmer, and loosing his middle. Our middle child has pretty much dropped his ADD ways, and is really excelling in school. Our youngest has less and less tantrums, is really improving. Now, I don't recommend induction for children, or anything radical. Your pediatrician is your best friend. All we did was eliminate as much as possible white flour and white sugar... That small change was all it took.

It seems a lot of things can be related to over carbing in our diets. Going from 325 grams per day, to about 60 is all it takes.

Portion control and calories

[core_dump_0]

The best that I've found.

Re:In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic

[betsywetsy]

Better read up, you're out of date:
Study surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more, lose weight
also, just for fun:
Diet for Obese Patient Tied to Liver Inflammation
Atkins studies report meaty results

Re:1970's? Try ancient history.

[sudog]

Yay, more faulty logic. Right, let's live as cavemen--because soap and hygiene actually clears away all the good bacteria that we need to live healthy cavemen diets.

(We'll just ignore the vastly improved lifespans due to modern hygiene and disease control.. we were never meant to have soap in an ancestral environment, after all.)

Let's live as cavemen did, and starve ourselves of certain nutrients for long periods of time, regardless of how bad that's been shown to be for us, and how well primitive agriculture-based societies do (ie: food stores readily available) versus primitive hunter-gatherer societies.

Those masses of starving people are living the CAVEMAN diet! We should be living like they do!

Because, you know, a biochemist is the next best thing to a medical doctor, right? Right? He *knows* what's good for a body after those few years of biochem studies..! His biochem degree is EXACTLY what qualifies him to give out medical advice to anonymous people he's never met before!

Fucking 'tard.

what about low-protein

[glassesmonkey]

All this talk of low-fat, and low-carb diets...

Introducing (world premier on /.) the patented low-protein diet..
You are only allowed to eat butter and candy (doughnuts are the bastard child of these two)..
I fear this will come to be known as the "Anna Nicole Diet"

BEST ADVICE FOR ALL SLASHDOT READERS

[sudog]

DO NOT get medical advice on how to radically change your weight, eating habits, nor lifestyle from a group of armchair wannabe-doctor biochemists and other assorted ners (a.k.a. Slashdot readers) who think that their relatively high IQ and overwhelming arrogance somehow qualifies them to give out potentially dangerous medical advice to people they've never met before.

DO NOT allow yourself to be seduced by the oft-abused mantra "If I can do it it must be good!"

DO NOT take to heart anything said here nor in the Salon article: YOUR results *WILL VARY* and the ONLY person qualified to give you advice that will drastically alter your life, your health and your eating habits is YOUR DOCTOR, and the THREE OTHER DOCTORS WHOM YOU SEE AFTER THAT.

DO NOT allow yourself to be swayed by the endless half-truths, poor logic, faulty reasoning, ridiculous posturing, and overall complete lack of intelligence that the comments in this article display!

DO remember that if you find a reason to go on a diet as a result of a comment here on Slashdot, PLEASE SIT THERE AND RE-READ the comment, and if *ANY*thing strikes you as a little off, or poorly explained, or even if it seems totally reasonable--THAT PERSON HAS NOT examined you, DOES NOT know your medical history, IS NOT AWARE of any risk factors your history, your habits, or your lifestyle might need to be considered when altering your daily habits.

DO NOT make yours the next horror story here on Slashdot because some dumbass thinks he knows what's best for you!

Please, I implore you!

Re:Yay! Anecdotal Evidence! It must be true!

[sudog]

Some Slashdot reader says he's never seen any evidence that the Atkins diet is bad for you! That means it's good for you!

Some Slashdot reader who you've never seen before, who doesn't know your medical history, has never examined you, has never considered your situation in the context of X years of intense medical study, doesn't even care if you live or die and won't hear about it either way, is telling you that the Atkins diet worked for him. That means the Atkins diet is Right For YOU!

Some Slashdot reader is instructing you on the fine art of what *you*, specifically, should eat to be healthy! That means it must be true!

Some Slashdot reader is telling you that the greatest help for attempting a radical change in your body is a fucking WEBSITE! That means the website is better than your own doctor! It must be true!

Don't buy into it. Speak to your doctor! Please!

Um, Actually, no

[6]

> Let's live as cavemen did, and starve ourselves of certain nutrients for long periods of

> time, regardless of how bad that's been shown to be for us, and how well

> primitive agriculture-based societies do (ie: food stores readily available) versus

> primitive hunter-gatherer societies.

Um no, archeology shows no such thing. In fact it shows the exact opposite. The switch from hunter-gatherer to farmer was pretty brutal. The mean height of humans dropped, the disease rate sky rocketed, and the mean life expectancy dropped.

Why?

The big problem was that early farming societies were primarily mono-cultures and while they tended to get enough caoloric intake they actually failed at getting a varied diet.

It is only in modern times that we have surpassed the hunter gatherers health wise.

Re:Um, Actually, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol you ownz0red him, very insightful post, I never realized that what I commonly thought was our prior state was actually a fairly recent development and the progress we've made in the last century or two is compared to that and not what has been the case on the larger scale historically.

Re:Um, Actually, no

[sudog]

I hope you didn't miss the point entirely, even though it was heavy enough to hit the broad side of a freekin' barn:

What was normal in an ancestral environment is not necessarily good for us now, and the great-grandparent poster's attempt at using the "let's live as cavemen did, we'll be healthier" is pure bunk.

Let me deal more with the tangential point you replied to:

The switch to an agricultural society allowed the gradual transformation into the modern, hygenic, and ultimately longer and more comfortable and relatively disease-free lives we now lead.

The immediate switch may or may not have been worse for us; however you don't actually state a case which suggests the effect of (possibly) poorer living conditions was a direct result of *poorer nutrition* BUT NOT the dramatic increase of disease and filth vectors in the newly crowded living environments.

And, agricultural societies fared far better, procreation-wise, than hunter gatherers did. That's why we're not hunter-gatherers anymore. By "how well they did" I'm talking about procreational success and the slow climb into modern, long-life, high average standard of living times.

I'd put money on the farmer communities kicking ass on the hunter-gatherers.

Quite frankly I'd rather be living in a society where I have guaranteed access to medical doctors and modern farms rather than running around and picking berries just so my kids don't starve.

Re:Um, Actually, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Cant be bothered to find a link, but there is evidence from anthropological research on modern (last 100 years) nomads and hunter gatherers that suggests they're not "running around and picking berries just so my kids don't starve". That infact the average hunter gatherer has more spare time than an average north american housewife...

Granted I'll give you the access to medical care as being extreemly important.

Re:More medical advice, worth absolutely nothing.

[sudog]

Please don't consider the parent post as anything but random drivel of someone who thinks he's an armchair doctor and knows what's good for you.

PLEASE don't turn to Slashdot for anything even remotely resembling advice--you'll get burned every. Single. Time.

PLEASE see your doctor and get an expert's advice. They know you, will examine you, will find out your medical history, and will have access to modern medical equipment which can aid in greatly improving your health in ways that the parent poster apparently is incapable of comprehending.

Anecdotes are NOT PROOF unless you're a die-hard acupuncturist. Advice given by someone who doesn't give two shits about you, personally, is worth exactly this: NOTHING.

Distorted image!

[Phoinix]

I wonder why she chose a distorted image?

May be this "Katharine Mieszkowski" has had problems with some hackers.

Miss Katharine Mieszkowski should know that many physicians, nurses, police officers etc... that handle her daily problems are also hackers!

As soon as I saw the image, I decided not to waste my time on her article.

It's the HFCS stupid

[glassesmonkey]

Ok, this article has inspired me to do some digging into High Fructose Corn Syrup.. I found this great article which points to twin studies and obesity. This confirmed a lot of my theories on weight and metabolism and a few of my pet peeves (like breast feeding and childhood obesity).

(a) sleep in the cold without the down, thick, fleece quilts (the myth about catching cold is a wives-tale)
(b) people should be arrested for child abuse when their 8 yr old is 200+ lbs
(c) it's all the High Fructose Corn Syrup that mfg-ers found they could make for cheaper than regular sugar
(d) breast feeding is one of the few obvious things in life.. if you are too lazy to breast feed for the babies first six months then give it up for adoption or pay someone to lactate for you
(e) if you are fat and it isn't from just eating too much over the last ten years, then dieting won't help.

A few points I found interesting:

95% of the obese had not been breast fed.

Recent research indicates fructose is much more damaging to the body than glucose. Massive increases in dietary fructose correspond with the rise in obesity and diabetes.

Normal adults do not retain weight brought on by a period of overeating.

Conversely, individuals whose weight gain was not caused by overeating are rarely successful at long term weight loss. The weight they lose usually comes back with considerable "interest" (rebound) which may be caused by an increase in the number of fat cell during dieting.

The commonly-held belief that the best diet for the prevention of coronary heart disease is a low saturated fat, low cholesterol is not supported by the available evidence from clinical trials.

Maternal diabetes, smoking, and malnutrition predispose the unborn to grow up fat.

Early withdrawl of breast feeding and early introduction of a high carbohydrate diet predispose the child to grow up fat.

Smokers gain weight when they quit smoking. Average is 16.7 pounds for men, 19.2 for women after 5 years. Nicotine reduces weight by increasing metabolism, not by reducing appetite or food intake.

A combination of ephedrine, caffeine, and aspirin supports modest, sustained weight loss even without prescribed caloric restriction, and may be more effective combined with diet. (though you risk insomnia, palpitations, tremor, and high blood pressure) The FDA is considering regulating ephedrine.

It has been suggested that early exposure to cold might promote adult leaness. Improvements in household heating in this century may contribute to an increase in obesity.

Gain quickly!

[Channard]

How did you gain that 1"? That sounds like more of a break through than the diet...

Perhaps he got an advert for special pills in his mail box.

The "Viz" diet

[Zog The Undeniable]

As published in the adult comic some years ago:

Eat and drink nothing until you reach your ideal weight.

Well, it's probably about as safe as Atkins ;-)

SPORT!!! and the American way of life

[theolein]

AS someone who has battled the pounds/kilos his whole life I thought I should relate this little story for the aspiring low kilo hacker:

I was born crippled with congenital dislocation of the hips, which meant that a lot of my childhood and early adulthood was spent with a lot of pain if I had to walk distances or even stand for more than 30 minutes. My mother was and is a health fanatic and put me on a number of diets which never seemed to work very well (one of them was an early version of the Atkins diet). I tried to do weightlifting/bodybuilding at school to compensate for my bad self image with a little success but stopped when I went to Uni and ballooned because I did the usual student thing of eating loads of fast food shit that I'd never had at home.

I left my home country (South Africa) and went to live in Berlin, Germany where I worked for the USAF. During this time I discovered swimming, the one sport that I could do with little pain. I was amazed. In about three quarters of a year I was as fit as hell with my four times weekly programme of 45 minutes crawling back and forth in the distance swimming lanes of the local indoor pool. I felt wonderful, for the first time in my life girls were going nuts over me and life was good.

During the dotcom years I gained massive amounts of weight due to enormously long work days and a diet of pizzas, burgers and beer.

That was three years ago and I've been a depressed, lonley fat pig the whole time. A while ago I decided that work could kiss my fat butt on the hole and I started my swimming programme (3 times a week@40 minutes at 6AM in the mornings) as well as simply stopping junk food (No pizzas, burgers, beer).

Already now, only a short while later I am feeling damn good about myself and looking forward to having a social and love life again with the added plus of having a clearer mind than any fad diet could give me.

In my time working for the USAF and my one visit to the US, I noticed how damn difficult it is to buy vegetables and food you actually have to cook--most supermarkets seem to be stuffed with precooked, processed shit that is neither nutritional nor healthy and people resort to chemical crpa like olestra etc in order to avoid actually getting out of their huge fucking cars and moving their bodies.

Do sport, drop the junk food and beer and eat vegetables (not from cans). You'll be fucking amazed.

Re:SPORT!!! and the American way of life

[Abcd1234]

eat vegetables (not from cans).

Why not from cans? Assuming they haven't been spiked with sugar, I see absolutely no reason why things like canned peas, beans, etc, should be excluded from the diet. And they have the advantage of long shelf life, easy accessibility, etc.

Re:SPORT!!! and the American way of life

[theolein]

Because most vegetables in cans taste like shit for one, although that's besides the point, but mainly because most vegetables in cans sit in a solution of usually salty water, which leaches out all the benefits that those vegetables ever had. It would probably be ok if anyone actually used the can water while cooking, but mostly it is just thrown away, along with your chances of eating decent food.

If you truly desperately need vegetables that can be preserved and you are not simply too lazy or have too little time to peel and cook normal vegetables, then get frozen vegetables and use that. But do yourself a favour and don't eat greens from cans.

Re:SPORT!!! and the American way of life

[MKalus]

n my time working for the USAF and my one visit to the US, I noticed how damn difficult it is to buy vegetables and food you actually have to cook--most supermarkets seem to be stuffed with precooked, processed shit that is neither nutritional nor healthy and people resort to chemical crpa like olestra etc in order to avoid actually getting out of their huge fucking cars and moving their bodies.

Yep,

made the same observation when I was living for 9 months in the states, and I turned into a fatty as well, gained roughly 20kg in 9 months, despite me walking to and from work every day for 45 minutes (one way).

Food in the US in general sucks, there are some "european style" super markets, but they cost an arm and a leg.

I still prefer the Jack Daniels diet

[GodLessOne]

I use it all of the time. Last week I lost three days.

Nice summary I heard

[slim]

A friend of mine summarised a low carb diet thus:
"You can't eat chips, you can't eat pizza".

He meant chips in the British sense: what Americans call "French Fries".

Under those circumstances, is it any wonder people lose weight?

Cycling

[olman]

Don't forget ankles. They're most likely part to bust if you jog and you're overweight.

As for biking, helmet is a must. Geeky, maybe. As one roomie said, he'd rather die than wear one of those things. Truer words never said.

You're ALL wrong, this is how Atkin's really works

[Faithman2k]

It's homeopathic. "Like treats like"... so you eat fat to get rid of fat :)

Why are Americans so obsessed with weight?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I moved here, I am astounded by how much time and advertising is spent on this obsession.

Read the Atkins book

[Anonymous Coward]

He had many decades of positive results. It's not a new diet. Tying Atkins and steriods together is absurd.

YMMV

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally lost about 35 pounds on a pseudo-Atkins diet.

My opinion is that any diet will do: the bottom line is that the calorie intake should be lower than the amount you use. But traditional low-fat diets leave you feeling like having an empty stomach 24/7. Atkins diet leaves a more satiated feeling for a longer time.

Live healthy and you'll loose weight

[Cronopios]

This subject has already been discussed on Slashdot.

The conclussion is that, if you want to get in shape, you just have to live healthy.

This is:
- Drink plain water (no soda, beer, coffee, etc)
- Eat more fruits and vegetables, and less fatty stuff. Have you ever heard of the mediterranean diet?
- Do physical exercise. Walking is good enough and pretty easy. Biking is also excellent. Forget about elevators, and try some martial arts or any other sport you like.

Good luck!

Atkins Alternative : Less Carb, More Protien

[bigsmelly]

From my own experience, foods high in protien (meat, beans etc), make me feel fuller.

Therefore, try an Atkins -style diet, with high protien foods (meat, fish etcetera. Roast meat, grilled is all good ).

Eat less carbs (pasta, chips, bread)

Don't eat fat unrestrainedly as Atkins seems to reccommend. (i.e. you dont need to be paranoid about it, but avoid butter, lard, massive fry ups)

Eat more protien! Mmmm good.

Eat lots of fruit and salad

PS Drink Lots of water contary to poular belief it does not make you fatter (bloated) but helps you stay thinner.

PPS Exercise

I prefer

[rikkards]

Put down the Mountain Dew, start eating right, get off your fat fucking ass and go out for a run. Diets don't work. Lifestyle changes do.

Re:More medical advice, worth absolutely nothing.

[AssFace]

LOL

Unless you are referring to my joke reference to DNP (which is illegal in the States), then I have no idea what you are talking about.

Everything I said is 100% true and there are multiple studies to back it up.

If you find fault in anything, point it out and discuss it, otherwise your post is fairly useless (but you got to use more capital words than I did, so you got that going for you).

Exercise.

[jamie(really)]

I did enjoy the one post that said ketosis has been a natural part of the human metabolism for millions of years. The bit about "ketones providing energy for you to chase the rabbit even though you havent eaten for two days" is particularly relavent I feel, and yet no mention of exercise was made by the author, other than "it would be nice".

If one is to argue that ketosis is ok because our bodies are designed for it, surely one has to say that actually our bodies are designed for a combination of glucosis, ketosis and exercise. Arguing for just one (glocosis) is exactly what the author complains about, and then promptly goes off to do it himself.

There is also evidence to suggest that the human body has already evolved in the few thousand years that agricultural technology has been used. There is even evidence that blood groups have changed in this short period to accomodate new living practices.

My wife is a personal trainer and nutritionist and has investigated lost of different diets. Bottom line, if you want to loose weight and control your metabolism, exercise! Its the one aspect of your metabolism that has been unchanged for millions of years. You'll feel better too. Hell, you might end up meeting a pretty girl and marrying her :-)

Although

[Anonymous Coward]

The great-grandparent post didn't seem to mention anything about hygene, but was being apparently non-conjectural about the way our systems deal with food.

Re:I take it you've never actually read Atkins' bo

[gfxguy]

I'd give this post mod points if I had them. The people that understand the diet really can't argue against it. It's horribly misunderstood.

I get into face to face arguments all the time with people who argue that low-carb = unhealthy. I always argue a few of the points mentioned in the parent post, and when people still don't get it I ask if they think I was healthier at 60 pounds higher, with acid reflux and high blood pressure. That usually ends the argument.

Not on slashdot, though, oh no. People have been brainwashed into low-fat for so long, they just can't accept it.

Re:1970's? Try ancient history.

[fldvm]

With respect to food and hominid metabolism...

I forget, are Dwarfs, elfs and hobbits hominid?

Weightlifting

[lgm]

I've found exrx.net to be an invaluable resource for working out.

Re:Weightlifting

[WTFmonkey]

Looks like a good site. I'll have to spend some time looking around. Thanks.

Re:Weightlifting

[Orangedog_on_crack]

Weightlifting. Ye Gods, the whole reason I spent the time and money on college was so I wouldn't have to pick up heavy things every day. ;)

What's wrong?

[The AtomicPunk]

What's wrong with just cutting out the garbage you eat and getting exercise ?

Why are most geeks so damn lazy?

It IS easy

[rabel]

Bleah, what a great bunch of excuses for not being healthy. You've only got one body, man. Take care of it.

Easy? Lift weights. Unless you're REALLY serious about it, you aren't going to turn into ah-nold, so don't worry about that. Build some muscle, which will burn calories even when you're not exercising.

You can eat pretty much all you like, just try to avoid fats and eat as much protein as you do carbs.

Lift weights 3 times a week for 30-45 minutes. Stick with the basics: bench press, squats, military press. Throw in some crunches and pull-ups.

I'm serious, do this for 6 weeks and you will be surprised at how much difference it makes. Try it!

The nice thing about fad diet ...

[Etyenne]

... is that there are so many to choose from.

Worst pain ever?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>HURTS like NOTHING you have EVER EXPERIENCED
Nope, I'd have to say that a kidney stone is far worse on the short term. Absolutely.

Holy denial Batman

[gosand]

Science/tech created the problem, let it also fix it without this miserable 24/hr discipline shit.

Wow, dude, are you in denial. Please explain how science/tech caused you to sit on your ass for hours on end and eat fast food 4 meals a day. Until you realize that *YOU* are the problem, all your diet efforts will be in vain. Convenience food is convenient, not mandatory. Did you get insanely fat overnight? No, it probably took you years and years of abusing your body to get that way. So stop looking for the easy way out and change your life. Learn how to fix the *problem* and not just patch the symptoms.

Re:Holy denial Batman

[Tablizer]

Until you realize that *YOU* are the problem, all your diet efforts will be in vain. Convenience food is convenient, not mandatory

The way I see it, from a practical standpoint we have only so many "units of discipline". If we spend them all on dieting, hunting for and making rabit food, boring excercises, and fighting hunger pangs, then we have none left over for anything else.

One's whole life becomes wrapped around that. That is waste that we have to battle biology like that in this modern era. I have better things to do with my time than fight against harmones and evolution in a losing battle.

For the sake of humankind...

[gosand]

Being gay is not something to see a doctor about. Being offended by somebody being gay is something to see a doctor about.

And for the sake of humankind, make it a Kevorkian.

Re:For the sake of humankind...

[Vexar]

Why is it when people get into off-topic or political/religious discussions, all the posts are suddenly Anonymous Cowards?

If I had anything thoughtful to say on this off-topic thread, I'd put my name on it (and suffer the moderation).

I lost 50 pounds in 3 months healthily

[kpogoda]

The diet is a very healthy one. Do not listen to people that are not fully educated on how it really supposed to work. I eat as much as I want, just differenlty and have lost and kept off the weight. I eat lots of vegatables and a good amount of meat. I stay away from the junk food. Junk food consists of anything with sugar content, chips, cookies, white bread (whole wheat is ok), pastas and white rice. A typical week for me is a huge salad for lunch with some tuna, chicken salad, nuts and regular italian dressing. Dinner consists of chili, chicken and vegetables, steak and vegetables, or just vegies. I stay away from the pototoes and have corn only once or twice a week. All other vegetables I pretty much have as much as I want. Breakfast consists of eggs, bacon, pork roll sausage or a little fruit. Yes, you can have fruit on the diet, just dont pig out because it does have sugars. The diet worked for me and all I did was eat differently, not less. I was reading interesting article comparing the diets around the turn of the century and today. The average american's sugar content is over 20 times that of back then. And their simple carbohydrate intake is also soaring. It is no wonder we are an obese society. Sugar gets directly metabolized by the body and if not used for energy gets formed into fat immendiately. Simple carbohydrates (usually anything man made, a good rule to go by) such as white breads, pastas, chips etc.... get metabolized very quicly into sugars, then fat. Complex carbohydrates are a little different (vegetables....pretty much all of them including mushrooms) are not converted to fat in such a manner. This diet is healthy and almost perfectly logical when you look back in the past history of man and how we evolved. It is based on moderation. Our society is a carb and sugar rich consumer. That is not moderation. Man was not meant to eat like the food pyramid suggests. The food pyramid just makes the junk food manufacturers rich and you unhealthly. It is also very strange to now not really looking at the fat content on labels. It goes against everything I was taught gowing up. But it works and I have not fealt this great in years. I am thin and keeping the weight off. The best part is I did not have to excersize at all to lost the weight. Just eat differently in the same quatities I was eating previsouly. I hope this clears up some misconceptions and gives you a guideline to anyone interested making themselves more healthy.

Re:Yay! Anecdotal Evidence! It must be true!

[adjensen]

Geez, what crawled up your ass and died?

I never said that anyone should do it on my word solely. I agree, speak to your doctor. He's likely to say (particularly if you're morbidly obese) that losing weight is the important thing. I simply provided my experience, the perspective of someone who's been through it, which you obviously haven't.

And if you bothered to read what I wrote, and looked at the website I suggested, you'd see that I said regardless of the method you're using to lose weight, Fitday will be your greatest tool. It keeps track of how many calories you consume and burn, nothing more. You can be on any diet and if you don't bother keeping track of what you're eating, you're going to fail.

missing the point

[NumLk]

The Atkins diet isn't so much about forcing your body into shock by completely eliminating carbs. That phase is short, and is explicitly intended to only be a brief phase. The whole purpose of the diet is to teach yourself to live on healthy foods. Carbs are definately restricted, but there is one simple element that eliminating from your diet will satisfy almost the entire Ongoing Maintenance phase of Atkins: sugar.

The Induction phase is intentionally only a short period, and is specifically designed to get your body out of the dependance on carbs. It is not intended to be continued for a lifetime! Once the induction phase is complete the remainder of the diet is slowly reintroducing foods that contain natural carbs into the diet.

As for the health risks, very few will experience any problems if they do Induction explictly as described, and then slowly return carbs to the diet. All diets have health risks, and everyone dieting should be fully aware of the risks involved, as well as the warning signs that something is going wrong during a diet.

Keep in mind, everything you do in life has health risks. Argueably, the anthesis to the risks with the Atkins diet is Diabetes.

Re:IT AINT ****** EASY!

[jafuser]

Mental functioning is impaired, with up to 15 IQ points impact, so it can be hard to do your job well, and to manage relationships effectively

I'm glad someone else mentioned this, sparing me to have to create a new thread along this topic in an already high-traffic discussion.

I already did the Atkins + Hacker diet thing about a year ago. It worked very well for some time.

The only problem was that during that time, I had a much harder time programming or doing anything that required highly abstract problem solving.

I'm thinking that all the snacks and sodas that are common stereotypicial staples of the computer geek are chosen not just at random, but the raised blood sugar they provide gives us a boost in our ability to perform the intricate tasks and problem solving that we engage in.

Wow.

[MrScience]

I'm actually doing an Atkins/Hackers/Body-for-Life combination (protien/spreadsheet/portion size). I've lost 20lbs over the last two months, and feel great!

Ever ride up hills?

[anomaly]

There's a reason that serious cyclists forearms look a bit like Popeye's!

Hill climbing is a great way to build forearms, triceps and delts.

Bike on the flat and you might not need much arm strength, but do any hills regularly and watch your arms grow....

Re:Ever ride up hills?

[MKalus]

I watched my shins grow quite a bit ;)

And yes, I do know you "pull" the bike during extended climbs.

M.

Re:More medical advice, worth absolutely nothing.

[shdragon]

Please cite references to your sources. Thank you.

Read one of my old journal entries on the subject.

[Trolling4Dollars]

I wrote a old JE a few months back and have stumbled on what I think is the perfect balance. It doesn't go way overboard with the "eat anything you want" approach and it doesn't require that you do much other than avoid simple carbs. So far, it's worked wonders for me and my wife.

Weight loss wasn't even our original plan. We were trying to rid ourselves of some health problems that the "Anti-Candida" diet seemed to work on. But... as we played with the diet to make it more tolerable, we found that weight loss just started happening even though we hadn't changed how much we ate. We simply stopped eating simple carbs (white sugar, honey, maple syrup, pop/soda, white flour, white rice, etc...). It appears that a normal adult body will handle complex carbs much better (we still eat potatoes, brown and wild rice, whole wheat flour and deserts made with whole wheat flour, etc...) We've gotten around the sugar issue by using a Stevia powder for sweetining desserts and home made soft drinks (Stevia and Seltzer water are your friends).

It took a while to adjust, but we've pretty much decided on this as a way of life. My wife is back down to her high school weight as she approaches 40. I am also back to my high school weight. We were simply amazed by the major change just from a few simple shifts in what we eat. And the food we eat tastes so much better now. :)

Overall, my take on it is that the quality and source of your carbs is much more important in determining how your body reacts than the ammount. We have cut back on carbs, but this is no Atkins diet. We still eat beans and even a special brand of non-yeast bread quite a bit. We have home made pizza once a week, spaghetti once or twice a week (whole wheat pasta only) and eat a slice of home made bundt cake every day for breakfast. Our intake of things like corn chips has increased and we've still managed to lose weight. So I don't think fat is necessarily bad either. Again, your source and quality of fat is much more important than the amount.

Re:More medical advice, worth absolutely nothing.

[AssFace]

Hit up pubmed yourself and find out something interesting.

Read up on the Cyclical Ketogenic Diet (CKD) or the Cyclical Isocaloric Diet. The CKD was developed because the Atkins diet will stop working (meaning you will stop losing weight - not meaning that you will balloon up in weight). The CKD allows people that are into fitness - weightlifters and the like, to maintain a low-carb diet such as Atkins, but still grain muscle mass with the refeed periods.
The CKD stops working as your bodyfat gets lower as well and that is where the cylclical isocaloric diet comes in.

Read up on leptin and what it has to do with your percent bodyfat. You can use bromocriptine to get around this - but the side effects of it are not worth it. (bromocriptine allowing you to regulate dopamine levels assuming that you don't take it around the time of insulin release - so usually on an empty stomach)

Lyle McDonald has written much on this - find his studies on it and you find a shortcut to the pubmed references.

Additional fun substances in weight loss:
*Yohimbe for fighting estrogentic deposits
*ALA (R-ALA) for partitioning of glucose disposal with higher affinity towards muscle
*CLA for increased burning of brown adipose tissue

Everyone knows about caffeine, then there is the ECA stack - ephedrine, caffeine, and asprin. Ephidrine has been linked to issues if you have pre-existing heart problems.
Don't add Yohimbe in to that stack though or else you are asking for trouble (although a high as well).

DNP was a big deal back in the day and saw great success, but its propensity to give women cataracts if they didn't use anti-oxidants and the ease of misuse (it will cause you to overheat from the inside out) made the FDA ban it.

If you are fat and on Atkins, you will lose weight quickly until you get to your set point (defined by your body's response to leptin) - by saying that it "won't work" after that doesn't mean that you will then bounce and get fat again if you stay on the diet - you just won't lose any more weight beyond your set point.

It is a higher percentage at which it stops in women since their bodies naturally tend towards a higher percent bodyfat.

I find it amusing that people are challenging me on this - if there is anything I am well versed in, it is nutrition and performance and the science behind it.

Think for 30 seconds...

[Anonymous Coward]

about your own body, and where you come from (genetically speaking). Assuming you don't believe we sprang fully-formed from some omniscient being, then you can glean what our ancestors ate most of the time - anything that could be eaten raw, or with a minimum of preparation/cooking. So, fresh fruit and veggies (lots), meat (some - whatever you could catch), but NO grains. Raw grains are disgusting (ever eat flour? what about raw corn?), so they'd be a non-starter. Also lots of water, because it was around.

So, any diet that follows these guidelines will probably be pretty good for you.

Re:Vegetarians and Vegans and travel

[billstewart]

Germany was easy, and I found I lost weight on vacation there, even though I was at a conference half the time. Part of it was more exercise, but if you take the basic German diet and leave out the large amounts of meat, the rest wasn't all that heavy :-) Also, train-station food there and Scandinavia varies a lot in quality and quantity, but bread and cheese are always available and extremely portable, and I guess if you're a vegan you carry a few jars of peanut butter for when there's nothing better available.

Atkins isn't a diet it's a lifestyle.....

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between a diet and a lifestyle. Many people choose to go on a "diet" to loose weight and then go back to their old eating habits and put it all back on. For many people who have been struggling with their weight for years the low-carb lifestyle has simply saved their lives.

I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes, High-bad cholesterol, low-good cholesterol and high blood preasure. My doctor wanted to put me on all kinds of medication and a low-fat diet. I went to a nutritionalist who suggested cutting carbs a little. So I said if a little is good then I'll try Atkins.

I've lost 80lbs and everything is completely in check except for my blood pressure. Which is under control with a low dose medication that I am working to get off by exercising more. I imagine it would also be better if I didn't work in a high-stress IT department!

Please if you are overweight and have tried everything else. Give Atkins a try. There is enough free information to follow his lifestyle right on their website. http://www.atkins.com No need to buy a book or CD.

Dr. Atkins saved my life and I don't say that lightly!

Re:In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic

[Anonymous Coward]

While the general intent of your post has merit, you could afford to be a bit less pedantic when you yourself can't even be consistent, such as with your use of 'Calorie' and 'calorie' ('little c' as you put it).

No diet will help...

[SharpFang]

...without one magical component: Motivation. And it could be all you need. You must feel the need to lose weight - find a reason - a good reason which you believe - and you can do it using old, plain granted method of "eat less, exercise more". True different "magical techniques" can be helpful - but they are not as important as motivation.

Around last winter I noticed I have a chance to I save enough, I can have vacations with horses. Learn riding finally. My dream! But I'd be a sadist to sit on a horse with my 103kg body fat. 4 months, -30kg, no "magic", just eating less and remembering every time: "No, if you eat that bag of chips, the horse will have to carry it!". And it worked.

Hacker's diet worked for me

[dspyder]

It's less so about eating well as it is about avoiding the stuff that is stupidly bad for you.

No mayo on your burger? Saves you 200 calories.

Diet soda instead of regular? Saves you 120 or so.

Sugar free Red Bull instead of the regular one? Saves you 240?

--D

Well, let's see...

[geekwench]

Per the good Professor:

"It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours; far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered..." ("The Fellowship of the Ring", from the Prologue.)

So -- there ya go. ;)

Gout WAS:What about the dangers?

[RobbieW]

SECONDED! Atkins worked great for me at first, but I stopped drinking as much water as I was before and FUCK ME HARDER! Gout attacked my ankle overnight! I had no idea what was going on and NOTHING I could buy over the counter that day would even moderate the pain. I woke up early and couldn't tolerate the motion that my on breathing imparted to the mattress on my ankle! It quickly hurt that bad constantly and any motion would cause my head to swim and I'd nearly pass out from the pain. Needless to say I was screaming a lot! I finally dragged my 275 pound 5'11" ass to my truck and had my wife drive me to the emergency room where I eventually learned that I had gout. Indocyn helped but the only thing I could do was stop eating all meat and shellfish! It is damn near impossible to do Atkins under these conditions.

Guess what I've found out now! The zone diet will cause my gout to flare up too!

I think the secret for me is to drink quarts and quarts of water every day to try and flush the uric acid out of my system, but I hate plain water so I'm goin to try adding lemon to plain water and occassionally cherry juice.

I cannot emphasize enough, get a full blood workup before you start any diet so you know what your levels are before you start. If your uric acid levels are high, drink a LOT of water every day.

Re:Gout WAS:What about the dangers?

[crazyphilman]

To make your gout go away a lot faster (and I mean a LOT) try this, which worked for me:

1. Eat a lot of whole cherries, blackberries, blueberries, basically any kind of dark red berry. Cherries seem to work best.

2. Drink a LOT, I mean quarts a day, of cranberry juice. It helps a lot.

3. Keep your ankle elevated during the day. The lower your ankle is, the more it'll swell up and hurt. If you can keep it up high, like on the armrest of the couch, with you laying on the couch, that'll help.

4. My doctor suggested getting a towel, soaking it in hot water, and wrapping it around my foot. The warmth seems to make it hurt a lot less. Make it as warm as you can stand it.

5. While you're trying to get rid of gout, don't eat ANY protein, including plant sources like beans. Load up on carbs, specifically low-calorie vegetables like green beans. But don't eat cauliflower, which is high in purines, and stay away from strawberries, they're supposed to have a negative effect.

6. Don't drink alchohol, whatever you do! It takes water out of your blood, which concentrates the uric acid and makes your gout worse. Possibly a lot worse.

7. A good way to see whether you're drinking enough water is, is your urine clear? The darker your urine is, the less hydrated you are. This is an old Marine Corps trick, used to ward off heat stroke, but it applies here too. You want to try and keep your urine as clear as possible while you're recuperating, so drink water and juice until you think you're going to burst. Think of it as flushing out your system.

I hope you feel better. Gout sucks!

-Phil

Prop Cycle

[Jaywalk]

If you ask me, the ultimate in geek exercise has got to be Prop Cycle. They hooked a video game into a stationary bike and suddenly a dull ride on a motionless bike become exciting. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of variations -- think "Spy Hunter" with bicycles.

Re:1970's? Try ancient history.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like you say, there are 2 states, ketogenic and glucogenic. That is normal.

Atkins says you should stay in one state (ketosis) ALL THE TIME!

That is not normal!

Exercise? when?

[Anitra]

That includes serious amounts of exercise (much more than the 'recommended' half hour per day or so).

When? I get up at 6:45, exercise for 20 minutes, and leave the house by 8:20. (I'm slow in the morning.) I drive 40 minutes to work.
I work all day, and cannot currently afford to take an hour-long break to go exercise in the middle of the day; this may change, however, once I become salaried.
I usually run a few errands and get home at 6:30. By then, it is cold and getting dark (at least for the next 5 months or so), and I am mentally exhausted - and hungry. By the time I've eaten and let the food settle, it's 8. Now it's REALLY dark, and I have ZERO motivation to exercise.

Any suggestions? I must drive to work, it's over 20 miles away. I'm sure as hell not going to get up any earlier; it's hard enough to drag myself out of bed and get started on those 20 minutes of exercise. Some friends want me to go weight-lifting with them, but they're not prepared to do it after 6pm.

I'd like to find time to exercise more, but what can I do around 8-9pm, in my apartment, without (much) special equipment, and without pissing off my roommates or the people who live below my apartment? Honestly, I'm open to suggestions. This is something I've been thinking about for several weeks.

Re:In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic

[NeoSkandranon]

As for the health of it, if you eat "too much" protein your piss will start to smell weird.

Not to mention anything coming out of your ass will smell like toxic waste. Hanging out with bodybuilders sucks.

Mmmmm....pizza

[misterpies]

Ten excellent reasons not to go on the atkins diet (in no particular order):

1. Pizza
2. Chocolate
3. Cakes
4. Bagels & breads
5. Sushi
6. French fries
7. Corn
8. Pasta/noodles
9. Oranges
10. Tomatoes
(I could go on).

Sure, you'll lose a lot of weight if you do the Atkins thing (and stick to it). You might even live longer. But your tastebuds will shrivel up. You'll forget what sweetness tastes like. Your choice.

As to all those who diss exercise as a method of weight loss: you're right. Going to the gym regularly will not lose weight. That's because muscle weighs more than fat. You'll still lose inches (I have). Having more muscle also increases your metabolic rate, so you can eat more without putting on fat. Plus being fit increases your energy levels and brings with it incontrovertible health benefits.

Sure, you'll be skinnier on Atkins. But that doesn't mean you'll be healthier. Fat people aren't unhealthy because they're fat. They're unhealthy because they have unhealthy lifestyles. It's noticeable that Sumo wrestlers, while they suffer from some health problems associated with obesity (eg arthritis) have low cholesterol, low blood pressure and low risk of diabetes. Why? lots of exercise. So even if you're on Atkins, you should still lead the other elements of a healthy life.

Re:More medical advice, worth absolutely nothing.

[shdragon]

I find it amusing that people are challenging me on this - if there is anything I am well versed in, it is nutrition and performance and the science behind it.

I am not challenging you; just asking for additional information (to which you supplied) since we're all strangers. Without sources (or a pointer to them) your original comment held little weight. Now that you've provided something to help back up your claims, everyone can learn.

Since both my parents are on Atkins and have had good success, I read your original comment and wanted to forward them the info, only you had yet to provide it. Again, thanks for the heads-up.

Atkins died obese

[giaguara]

What I find very interesting is that dr. Atkins himself died not long ago... and obese. IF he knew how to help people stay in healthy weight and made so many millions out of it, then why was HE himself fat?

Study: No link between fat consumption and stroke

[Arthur Dent]

Here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/32 7/7418/777

<quote>
Objective To examine the association between intake of total fat, specific types of fat, and cholesterol and risk of stroke in men.

Design and setting Health professional follow up study with 14 year follow up.

Participants 43732 men aged 40-75 years who were free from cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in 1986.

Main outcome measure Relative risk of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke according to intake of total fat, cholesterol, and specific types of fat.

Results During the 14 year follow up 725 cases of stroke occurred, including 455 ischaemic strokes, 125 haemorrhagic stokes, and 145 strokes of unknown type. After adjustment for age, smoking, and other potential confounders, no evidence was found that the amount or type of dietary fat affects the risk of developing ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. ...
</quote>

Keepin it simple works?

[zahadum]

In my experience diets and such don't really help in reality. I don't need theories and knowledge too much, I'd rather listen to my body and try methods as running and stuff, you KNOW when you're doing healthy stuff and you KNOW when you lose or gain weight as of certain actions. This is what WORKS for me, and I don't need books for this.

Re:Yay! Anecdotal Evidence! It must be true!

[sudog]

Dude, you're in no position to be offering methods by which other people make drastic changes to their lifestyles, and making such suggestions is just about the most dangerous thing you could do for them.

Re:More medical advice, worth absolutely nothing.

[sudog]

The point is that you are NOT a doctor (if you are, you should have your licence revoked.) Only someone's doctor or other qualified individual who knows someone's history, metabolism, eating habits, etc. is qualified to assist someone trying to lose weight. Even a best friend--who would know about a person's allergies or other history--is a better source of advice than you are.

In fact, many of your points may do harm to someone whose body can't tolerate the kinds of stresses that a diet puts on them.

I never said what you said was false. I said to the random readers out there that they should consider your post to be mindless drivel and go and speak with their doctor.

I find it amusing that with your supposed expertise you're offering advice on radical dieting technique to people you know next to nothing about. You, of all people, should know that offering this kind of advice without at the very least a "please see your doctor and ask them about this" can be very dangerous to certain individuals.

Thus, you're stupid, regardless of whether a thousand studies back you up--because those thousand studies have nothing to do with the individuals you're preaching to.

Re:More medical advice, worth absolutely nothing.

[AssFace]

Thus, you're stupid, regardless of whether a thousand studies back you up--because those thousand studies have nothing to do with the individuals you're preaching to.

LOL

Thus not only I am stupid, but the scientific method is stupid too.

I like your style.

Re:1970's? Try ancient history.

[StrawberryFrog]

"hominid" implies an evolutionary family tree. The races of Middle-earth were created by Illuvator at the beggining of the first age, thus there is no such thing there.

In Middle Earth, The creation story is not a fiction. But then, Middle Earth is a fiction :)

Another Study: Counting Calories does not help...

[Arthur Dent]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_836098.html?m enu=news.scienceanddiscovery

A six-month study in America has found some calories cause people to put on more weight than others.

The survey of 65 overweight and obese adults - 70% of whom had type 2 diabetes - found that those put on a moderate fat diet containing almonds lost more weight than those on a low-fat diet without almonds.

But the total number of calories for both groups was the same.

And other factors such as protein intake were also maintained at equal levels.

The waistline measurements of those on the moderate fat diet with almonds fell by 14%, compared with 9% for the other group.

Fat mass figures also fell by 10% more in the group on the almond diet.

The results - published in the International Journal of Obesity - cast doubt on widely held beliefs about dieting.

It has long been assumed that a key to losing weight is cutting calorie intake.
...

Re:In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic

[gessel]

Your comment deserves to be modded up, not because I'm out of date, but because it is based on data, or at least reporting on the data. It's good to look at real data to make your choice. If you find this data convincing, go for it.

First, to dismiss the findings of the liver inflammation study: no health professional would suggest a high simple sugar diet - eg sucrose etc. Such diets are long associated with obesity and liver and pancreas disease. There's nothing to indicate that these subjects were eating brown rice and whole wheat bread for their carbohydrates rather than fries and a coke. Without that data, the study doesn't mean much.

The USA Today article presents a summary of three smaller studies that found some interesting results - and indeed they are interesting. But the results are presented as a meta-study of smaller studies. The problem is that the association of high intakes of animal fats with coronary disease and obesity is the consequence of hundreds of studies. Taken as a whole, the data overwhelming contradicts the Atkins diet. It's not fair to choose only supportive studies for inclusion in a meta study.

The most reported and best structured study is the Harvard one, and it's generated a lot of press. But note that the Atkins organization paid for it. Paid research overwhelmingly achieves results in keeping with the sponsor's goals. Contradictory results don't' get published, not to demean the author, but if she found the opposite, we wouldn't have heard about it. How many studies did Atkins pay for that haven't found results? This study used 7 - SEVEN whole subjects on each diet. Compare this with more rigorous studies, such as this one which found a clear correlation between heart disease and animal fats: 80,000 nurses. It's your heart - which results do you trust?

But a more in-depth review of the results provides more details, and as always the results are less astonishing than the general press makes them seem. It's well known that it takes more energy to digest protein than carbohydrate. The subjects lost 2 pounds per week, not the 20 pounds of the absurd claims, and the difference in weight loss between equal Calorie subjects differentially fed protein or carbohydrate was only 20%, which is about the inefficiency of high protein processing. Like she says - it's not smoke and mirrors. Plus her subjects were fed fats considered relatively healthy - not hamburger patties, for example, but fish and chicken.

If you want to believe, just click your heels and eat your fatty beef (as long as we're not co-insured), but there's nothing in this study that should make you think doing so is healthy. It does suggest further study - I find the data unconvincing, but it definitely suggests, if it holds up in larger, non-atkins funded studies, that it may be possible to lose slightly more weight on the high fat and protein diet she cooked up vs the high carbohydrate diet she cooked up, at least as long as she's doing the cooking... But the numbers look to me to be more disproving of the Atkins diet than proof - here's why: it is well known that of the three basic calorie sources (carbohydrate, protein, fat) only protein has a substantially lower bioavailable caloric value than it's bomb calorimetric data would indicate. This is not new, mind you, but well known in "traditional" nutrition.

For example soy protein isolate provides about 3.28 Calories per gram, compared to roughly 4 Calories per gram for carbohydrate. Compare the two 1800 Calorie men's groups. Calorimetric values for the protein in their diets would be 4 Calories per gram: therefore the high fat group got 135 gms of protein per day, and the high carbohydrate group got 67.5, meaning the high protein group got 50 fewer available Calories per day. If they

Re:More medical advice, worth absolutely nothing.

[euxneks]

(if you are, you should have your licence revoked.)

Your comments are very inflammatory and do nothing to help your argument.

Although I agree that dieting is just plain bad for the body- I'll deny myself food! that'll be a good way of losing weight! *duhr*..

Thus, you're stupid

Honestly, do you get off calling people stupid or something? It doesn't matter whether they are stupid or not, pointing that out to them is useless, save to bait them into a flame-fest. Even if you have a valid reason for thinking them stupid, calling them stupid isn't going to make them "come around" and accept your viewpoint. I'm starting to think that you are arguing for the sake of arguing? Usually one argues to convince another that their viewpoint is flawed.

However, someone giving anecdotal evidence about the atkin's diet on slashdot should be ignored and smart people will recognise this. Others, well, that's what evolution is for, right?