Curves

[Guest guest]

>You are only supposed to go back to the

>phase 1 diet for up to 72 hours so your " starvation hormones " don't

>kick in.

I could be wrong, but I don't think starvation metabolism kicks in from

low-carbing, just from calorie reduction. In fact, I'd think that if

anything, eating loads of fat would tell the body that times are good.

-

[Guest guest]

>> I could be wrong, but I don't think starvation metabolism kicks in from

low-carbing, just from calorie reduction. In fact, I'd think that if

anything, eating loads of fat would tell the body that times are good. <<

That would be my take on it, also. The whole point of Atkins and other low carb

programs (although of course, not all of them actually accomplish this) is to

even out blood sugar swings and re-set the metabolism to healthy levels by

reducing carbs. The " Induction " phase is low in carbs and high in fat, not low

in calories, so there's no reason for " starvation " to set in.

I do like the individualized and staged approach of the Atkins program, where

each person adds various things to their diet as they gradually lose excess body

fat, again as they near their goal, and again when they have reached their goal,

to determine at what level of carb consumption they lose, at what level they

maintain, and at what level they gain. Since every person is unique, this seems

to me to be the only effective way to do it. Some people maintain or lose at

relatively high levels of carbs (still within the context of low carbing). For

others, carb levels need to be kept pretty low lifelong, but caloric intake can

be surprisingly high.

Christie

[Guest guest]

I like that too. When I hear people say that the Atkins program is too

restrictive or you can't eat this or that, they are missing the point. The

real restrictive version is only the starting point. Having said that I

didn't do so well on Atkins. I wasn't a happy camper in ketosis. I did

better when I added an obscene amout of fat to my diet. Also after 3 weeks

I still didn't lose any weight which I found quite disappointing. Then came

several trips, family visits etc and it just became too inconvenient. The

thing I did notice on the induction diet is my blood sugar became very

stable. I didn't have hunger quite the same insistent way and I became

physically much stronger. I no longer felt that " ugh! " when I picked up my

25 lb one-year-old.

I may try it again.

Irene

At 08:08 AM 6/21/03, you wrote:

>I do like the individualized and staged approach of the Atkins program,

>where each person adds various things to their diet as they gradually lose

>excess body fat, again as they near their goal, and again when they have

>reached their goal, to determine at what level of carb consumption they

>lose, at what level they maintain, and at what level they gain.

[Guest guest]

Irene-

>I wasn't a happy camper in ketosis. I did

>better when I added an obscene amout of fat to my diet.

Eating a lot of fat and being in ketosis aren't mutually exclusive, but

it's important to modify Atkins to conform to your own metabolism AND to

compensate for the deviations from the ideal he's been forced to make by

mainstream medicine. Those deviations include warnings against eating " too

much " fat, against eating saturated fat " for in case it turns out to be

harmful " , etc. A lot of people mistakenly think " low-carb " necessarily

means " high protein " .

-

[Guest guest]

I understood all that. The only thing I didn't realise at the beginning was

how much fat I required to feel " OK " in ketosis. It turned out to be much

more than I would have thought.

Irene

At 08:45 AM 6/21/03, you wrote:

>Irene-

>

> >I wasn't a happy camper in ketosis. I did

> >better when I added an obscene amout of fat to my diet.

>

>Eating a lot of fat and being in ketosis aren't mutually exclusive, but

>it's important to modify Atkins to conform to your own metabolism AND to

>compensate for the deviations from the ideal he's been forced to make by

>mainstream medicine. Those deviations include warnings against eating " too

>much " fat, against eating saturated fat " for in case it turns out to be

>harmful " , etc. A lot of people mistakenly think " low-carb " necessarily

>means " high protein " .

>

>

>

>

>-

>

>

>

>Sponsor<http://rd./M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705\

060950:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12ongbbsq/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?\

camp=556 & lineid=3179269 & prop=egroupweb & pos=HM>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> That would be my take on it, also. The whole point of Atkins and

other low carb programs (although of course, not all of them actually

accomplish this) is to even out blood sugar swings and re-set the

metabolism to healthy levels by reducing carbs. The " Induction " phase

is low in carbs and high in fat, not low in calories, so there's no

reason for " starvation " to set in.

From what it sounds like, the author makes the assumption that once

you get to phase 3 (or maintenance), you won't maintain your " strict "

low-carb diet and will go back to eating the diet you ate before

losing the weight. Now, he does suggest that you continue to eat

healthy, avoid sugar and refined foods, but he assumes that most

people won't keep it up entirely, which is where the metabolism stuff

comes in.

Eating the NT way will probably take care of that; I was mostly

surprised at how many calories he suggests you eat per day. A study

I read recently said that most people have to exercise an hour a day

(not a terrible idea, I suppose) and eat an average of 1400 calories

in order to maintain weight loss, which seems pretty close to

starvation to me. Especially when I read on the WAP website the

amount of calories eaten by some of the site's main contributors. I

guess that's what intrigued me the most about this.

When I'm in maintenance, I'd like to be able to drink more raw milk

and kefir, eat yogurt, sprouted grain bread, porridge, etc. I have

to avoid those (for the most part) in order to lose weight.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/22/03 8:28:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> And if someone doesn't have weight to lose, most of these issues are moot.

> I know one guy who was at a fine weight who went onto " Atkins for Life " and

> started at around 100 grams of carbs a day; one-third the usual amount eaten

> by Americans, so still " low, " and allowing for several whole grain foods. The

> Atkins plan deducts fiber grams from carbohydrate counts, so this also leaves

> even more room for those who don't have problems with higher levels.

>

Does the Atkins program count lactic acid as a carb?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/22/03 8:41:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> You know, I don't know what an obscene amount was for you, but on

> induction, you are supposed to get 60-75 percent of your calories from fat,

because

> only then will the metabolic changes occur that for most people are necessary

> to really change your metabolism, blood sugar, appetite, energy levels, etc.

I would define an " obscene " amount of fat as anything LESS than 40%. I know

a lot of people who eat *obscene* amounts of bread with their butter.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> From what it sounds like, the author makes the assumption that once

you get to phase 3 (or maintenance), you won't maintain your " strict "

low-carb diet and will go back to eating the diet you ate before

losing the weight. Now, he does suggest that you continue to eat

healthy, avoid sugar and refined foods, but he assumes that most

people won't keep it up entirely, which is where the metabolism stuff

comes in. <<

Hmmm, I don't know if I agree with this. I have not gotten that impression from

Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, but rather that this is a lifelong way of

eating that is tuned to the individual. He repeatedly says that it's NOT a diet

you go on or off of and that you never go back to the old way of eating, because

if you do, you'll just go back to the old way of FEELING!

>> Eating the NT way will probably take care of that; <<

I see absolutely no conflict between eating the NT way and Atkins. I think they

are extremely compatible, which is the reason I chose Atkins.

>> I was mostly

surprised at how many calories he suggests you eat per day. A study

I read recently said that most people have to exercise an hour a day

(not a terrible idea, I suppose) and eat an average of 1400 calories

in order to maintain weight loss, which seems pretty close to

starvation to me. Especially when I read on the WAP website the

amount of calories eaten by some of the site's main contributors. I

guess that's what intrigued me the most about this. <<

I'm not following this exactly. By " he " do you mean Atkins? He doesn't have you

count calories unless you stop losing weight before you are at your goal and are

otherwise following the plan. He calls this " metabolic resistance " and makes a

number of suggestions for overcoming it, one of which is counting calories, but

far from the only one. And remember, a calorie isn't really a calorie - how many

you need to lose weight depends on what you're eating. Obese teens on a high fat

Atkins diet of over 1800 calories a day lost over 20 pounds in six weeks, while

kids on a low fat, conventional weight loss diet of 1200 calories lost only a

bit over 9 pounds in the same time. At followup which was either 6 months of a

year later (I am afraid I don't recall which one it was), all but one of the

Atkins teens was still on the plan, not even one of the low fat kids was. So I

think that if you are eating right, you can consume more calories and lose MORE

weight on Atkins. In my experience reading about people having trouble with

Atkins, those who seem to do the worst are those who cannot or will not eat

enough fat. Induction is a period when you are supposed to get 60-75 percent of

your calories from fat. Many people just cannot grasp or accept this, and thus

never fully experience the metabolic shift that is the cornerstone of the plan.

And of course, some people simply can't tolerate a diet like this. I can, my

mother cannot. I don't know the answer for those people.

>> When I'm in maintenance, I'd like to be able to drink more raw milk

and kefir, eat yogurt, sprouted grain bread, porridge, etc. I have

to avoid those (for the most part) in order to lose weight. <<

Although I don't think Atkins ever addressed this, other low carb sites point

out that there are almost no carbs in fermented dairy products, so I don't see

why you'd have to give up yogurt or kefir on maintanence. If you can maintain on

milk (note to non-Atkins folks, this refers only to milk itself, the Atkins

program suggests we use cream rather than milk, and in no way restricts dairy

products OTHER THAN milk itself, except the higher-carb ones such as fresh

cheeses in the early, weight loss segments of the plan) and sprouted grains, I

don't see that would conflict with Atkins. The " critical carbohydrate level for

maintanence " is individually arrived at, and grains are included as the last

" rung " of the ladder he uses to add foods back into the plan. Granted, it's not

a lot of grains, but if you can maintain on a fairly high level of carbs (within

the context of a low carb diet), and grains don't give you problems, then you

should be able to include them. I know a couple of Atkins folks on maintanence

who eat oatmeal with cream and berries for breakfast a couple or three times a

week.

The only things you really never go back to are refined sugar and related

sweeteners, trans-fats, nitrates/nitrites, and refined flours. Sounds very

NT/WAP-friendly to me. <G>

And if someone doesn't have weight to lose, most of these issues are moot. I

know one guy who was at a fine weight who went onto " Atkins for Life " and

started at around 100 grams of carbs a day; one-third the usual amount eaten by

Americans, so still " low, " and allowing for several whole grain foods. The

Atkins plan deducts fiber grams from carbohydrate counts, so this also leaves

even more room for those who don't have problems with higher levels.

Of course, there are always going to be those who are hooked on processed,

non-nutritious foods, and you can " do Atkins " that way too. Dr. Atkins fed into

this by allowing that whole obscene line of processed convenience foods to bear

his name. His motives were to fund research into his plan, which is laudable,

but he lost a great deal of my respect nonetheless. Those I know who have had

real success on Atkins (by which I DO NOT MEAN they got skinny, I mean they got

healthy) have not used " fake foods, " whether they bear the Atkins name or not!

Most who have true success on Atkins stick to fresh, whole foods.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> I like that too. When I hear people say that the Atkins program is too

restrictive or you can't eat this or that, they are missing the point. The

real restrictive version is only the starting point. Having said that I

didn't do so well on Atkins. I wasn't a happy camper in ketosis. I did

better when I added an obscene amout of fat to my diet. <<

You know, I don't know what an obscene amount was for you, but on induction, you

are supposed to get 60-75 percent of your calories from fat, because only then

will the metabolic changes occur that for most people are necessary to really

change your metabolism, blood sugar, appetite, energy levels, etc. And if you

are not losing weight, if you look at the chapter on overcoming metabolic

resistance, one of the suggestions is a " fat fast, " where over 90 percent of

calories come from fat!

I am very lucky that I am NOT metabolically resistant, despite a lifetime of

trying to get that way, LOL - perhaps that is because I had long ago stopped

eating sugar and ate mostly fresh, whole foods, and also because I had not been

dieting and re-gaining for my whole adult life. I got off the weight loss

merry-go-round 20 years ago. I think that those who have gone up and down a few

times have the most metabolic resistance. I'm one of those lucky ones for whom

the pounds have been melting off, my energy is incredible, my blood sugar has

evened out, and I feel fantastic. I'm extremely happy with this plan, and it's

totally compatible with everything else I want out of a way of eating. Sure, I'd

like a bit more variety, but I'm content to wait for maintanence for that, and

in the meantime, I am never ever hungry, don't feel deprived, have no cravings,

and in general feel truly wonderful. (Atkins tells you if you feel hungry, EAT!

And believe me, a deviled egg or hunk of cheese will go a lot further to quell

hunger pangs than a celery stick will, LOL!)

>> Also after 3 weeks

I still didn't lose any weight which I found quite disappointing. Then came

several trips, family visits etc and it just became too inconvenient. The

thing I did notice on the induction diet is my blood sugar became very

stable. I didn't have hunger quite the same insistent way and I became

physically much stronger. I no longer felt that " ugh! " when I picked up my

25 lb one-year-old. <<

You may have been metabolically resistant and needed to do something in addition

to induction, or you might just have needed to give it more time. Some of the

common mistakes I see are: Not drinking enough water, not following the plan

" really, " eating things that stall you such as artifical sweeteners, and the

number one problem: Insufficient fat and/or food in general.

Also, if you are more active you might simply be building muscle, which as

everyone knows is heavier than fat. I don't go by the scale, I use a tape

measure. A scale can be very deceptive and really mess with your head. ly,

if you feel great and are stronger and less active and your blood sugar is

stable, even if the weight comes off half a pound a month, but STAYS off,

wouldn't it be worth it?

Of course I do not believe Atkins is for everyone. It might be wrong for you.

I'm obviously in the " passionate newcomer " phase myself. <G>

Christie

[Guest guest]

By obscene amounts of fat I mean that in addition to frying everything in

bacon fat and putting butter on everything else, I started eating nearly a

pint of sour cream (homemade, raw sour cream yum!) every day. In fact

whenever I felt a bit spacy I would grab a tablespoon of sourcream and

seemed to help. But I guess that is what I needed. Although I didn't lose

weight I didn't gain either. I just got sick of trying to keep my carbs so

low. Having to avoid peas and carrots got to be a pain. I didn't get so far

a to try the fat fast. Somehow that does not appeal to me at all. Maybe at

some point I will try it. I have never had a problem with weight loss

before but I had a baby a year ago. My body might still be readjusting. I

will probably try ithe diet again in a few months. This time up my fats

right from the start and maybe let it go a bit longer.

Irene

At 05:37 PM 6/22/03, you wrote:

> >> I like that too. When I hear people say that the Atkins program is too

>restrictive or you can't eat this or that, they are missing the point. The

>real restrictive version is only the starting point. Having said that I

>didn't do so well on Atkins. I wasn't a happy camper in ketosis. I did

>better when I added an obscene amout of fat to my diet. <<

>

>You know, I don't know what an obscene amount was for you, but on

>induction, you are supposed to get 60-75 percent of your calories from

>fat, because only then will the metabolic changes occur that for most

>people are necessary to really change your metabolism, blood sugar,

>appetite, energy levels, etc. And if you are not losing weight, if you

>look at the chapter on overcoming metabolic resistance, one of the

>suggestions is a " fat fast, " where over 90 percent of calories come from fat!

>

>I am very lucky that I am NOT metabolically resistant, despite a lifetime

>of trying to get that way, LOL - perhaps that is because I had long ago

>stopped eating sugar and ate mostly fresh, whole foods, and also because I

>had not been dieting and re-gaining for my whole adult life. I got off the

>weight loss merry-go-round 20 years ago. I think that those who have gone

>up and down a few times have the most metabolic resistance. I'm one of

>those lucky ones for whom the pounds have been melting off, my energy is

>incredible, my blood sugar has evened out, and I feel fantastic. I'm

>extremely happy with this plan, and it's totally compatible with

>everything else I want out of a way of eating. Sure, I'd like a bit more

>variety, but I'm content to wait for maintanence for that, and in the

>meantime, I am never ever hungry, don't feel deprived, have no cravings,

>and in general feel truly wonderful. (Atkins tells you if you feel hungry,

>EAT! And believe me, a deviled egg or hunk of cheese will go a lot further

>to quell hunger pangs than a celery stick will, LOL!)

>

> >> Also after 3 weeks

>I still didn't lose any weight which I found quite disappointing. Then came

>several trips, family visits etc and it just became too inconvenient. The

>thing I did notice on the induction diet is my blood sugar became very

>stable. I didn't have hunger quite the same insistent way and I became

>physically much stronger. I no longer felt that " ugh! " when I picked up my

>25 lb one-year-old. <<

>

>You may have been metabolically resistant and needed to do something in

>addition to induction, or you might just have needed to give it more time.

>Some of the common mistakes I see are: Not drinking enough water, not

>following the plan " really, " eating things that stall you such as

>artifical sweeteners, and the number one problem: Insufficient fat and/or

>food in general.

>

>Also, if you are more active you might simply be building muscle, which as

>everyone knows is heavier than fat. I don't go by the scale, I use a tape

>measure. A scale can be very deceptive and really mess with your head.

>ly, if you feel great and are stronger and less active and your blood

>sugar is stable, even if the weight comes off half a pound a month, but

>STAYS off, wouldn't it be worth it?

>

>Of course I do not believe Atkins is for everyone. It might be wrong for

>you. I'm obviously in the " passionate newcomer " phase myself. <G>

>

>Christie

>

>

[Guest guest]

In answer to your question about Curves

From: jlhobster@...

Subject: Re: Curves (exercise in general)

What is " Curves? "

You can go to www.curvesinternational.com and get a first hand explanation.

Here is a short version - as I see it. Curves is one of fastest growing

francise companies that cater to women's exercise programs. I live in a small

town in Ohio and the " Curves " here just opened. Every small town around us has

it's own " Curves " now. You exercise on resistance machines and on a cushioned

" recovery board " . Each station is done at 30 second intervals. In other words,

for example, you work for 30 seconds on a machine that works your leg muscles,

then move to a recover board for 30 seconds, then go on to next machine that

concentrates on upper body muscles, etc.etc. You are sitting at the machines

for the most part. The advantage of sitting helps me a lot.

I was concerned about the recovery board, since you are " stepping " to the music.

I thought I would lose my balance too much, but instead my balance has improved

since doing the exercises. YEAH.

I am told that in some states they do have men in the program, but I do not know

which ones.

Hopes this helps.

[Guest guest]

To Danita and all:

Thanks for sharing the great success stories from Curves. Ours just started

last Oct. I know that not everyone who posts here can do the Curves program,

but it really does help your outlook to be able to do " something " nice for

yourself. Like you, Danita, my symtoms are on the light side right now. I am

sure that is partly because of Curves. I feel like I can move more freely. I

also have less pain, and have been able to get my house work done without

running out of energy.

Another thing I like about Curves is that it is not so strenuous as to take all

my energy for day. Instead, if I do it in the morning, I seem to be " energized "

for the rest of my day.

All around positive experience for me.

[Guest guest]

Hi Elaine,

I'm glad you posted the Curves question. We have a couple of Curves shops in

my area and a friend of mine used to go. She said the people were very nice to

her and she didn't feel out of place like she had at other work out clubs. My

problem/concern or even fear is she said that the work outs are very fast

paced. She was only there for a half hour (don't quote me on the time) but they

moved you from machine to machine really quickly. I certainly don't move very

fast anymore and have a concern about falling because I can't jump down off a

machine or get up on another. I'm wondering if anyone else knows about this

kind of fitness center.

Elaina.

[Guest guest]

It is great to see so many ladies talking about Curves. I am feeling so much

better going first thing in the morning, it gets my motor and motivation going.

if any of you get to Hardy, Arkansas look me up and we can go together!!!!!

Cathleen in Arkansas