Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Veramocor
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.
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).
-- Alastair
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
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.
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines yet?
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.
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.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
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
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.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
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.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
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.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
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.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
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.)
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
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.
PepperHacks - Hacking the Pepper Pad