Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

[wannabethintoo]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

I don't feel like I'm in starvation mode either. The calories that I'm eating are VERY filling and the percentages are right.

[cleochatra]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

wannabe-- And that's what matters! Hubby's on the phone with him right now. He said "pish" about starvation mode as regards what we're doing because we exercise, are not lethargic, are not starving ourselves, feel satisfied and are taking care of our bodies. I know him well enough, and he doesn't blow smoke up peoples' skirts. He's a pragmatic doctor and well-respected. If he had doubts he would have shared them immediately.

[cleochatra]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

Again, not saying this is for everyone. But if it works, it works.

This is no diffy than someone whose had weight loss surgery and only eats a few hundred calories a day. Only Atkins is providing the clamp...not the surgeon.

[wannabethintoo]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

A doctor actually said "pish"?

Thanks for checking into that again Cleo.

[cleochatra]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

OK. Well, not pish. But he says that's hogwash. Pish was just quicker at the time.

[wannabethintoo]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

OK. Well, not pish. But he says that's hogwash. Pish was just quicker at the time.

A doctor actually said hogwash?

[cleochatra]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

He does!

[Finelly]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

There's a difference between starving yourself and being in starvation mode.

Starving yourself infers that you are depriving yourself of the essential nutrients with which to live your daily life. Your skin becomes dry and flakey. Your hair falls out. You lose energy. You loes muscle tone. You become bloated and retain water and other types of fluids. You can DIE. This is found in anorexics, bulemics, and concentration camp victims.

Starvation mode is the process of reducing your calories below the bmr. You can have tons of energy and even maintain muscle tone. You can be taking in enough minerals and vitamins to prevent organ damage. But what you ARE doing is hurting your metabolism. You are training your body to live on fewer calories than it needs to simply exist without moving. You are doing something that has long-term consequences - when you are done with induction or OWL, and get back to normal, regular eating (still low carb, but not as low), your body won't be tolerating the increase in carbs and calories very well and you may GAIN quickly rather than reach an acceptable maintenence level. For example, someone who is in starvation mode for more than a few weeks will, when reaching maintenence, be able to tolerate a lower number of carbs and/or calories than someone who did it by the book, eating at the bmr and getting the metabolism to regulate itself naturally.

Any doctor will tell you that starvation is bad. And that same doctor will not consider eating 1,000 calories a day to be "starvation" - after all, that is the historically recommended daily consumption for someone on a traditional diet!

What Dr. Atkins said was that eating 1,000 calories a day to lose weight AND to develop a healthy lifestyle is wrong. He said that fat-burning is the key, and that while ketosis regulates our appetites naturally, we have to eat enough to be able to get our metabolisms to work normally. Our metabolisms, as fat people who have tried every type of diet, are shot. Doing another 1,000 calorie a day diet plan, whether Atkins or not, is not going to fundamentally change our relationship with food, our relationship with our bodies, and our metabolic regulation.

Look, reduce your calories if you want to. But don't do it thinking that it is the only way you will reach your goal weight. And please think very hard about recommending it to others. Cleo is right in issuing a disclaimer about her way - the danger for other people is that it will lead them to crave forbidden foods, fail to develop the discipline and the healthy eating habits that we all need, and quite possibly cause well-inentioned Atkineers to fail when they don't need to!

[cleochatra]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

My father-in-law doesn't agree with that summation of starvation mode.

As an aside, I do eat when I'm hungry. Some days I eat 1500 calories. Some days I eat 600. We all have hungry and unhungry days. But arbitrarily feeding the body to hit a BMR isn't pragmatic if the body doesn't want it.

I think there are many schools of thought regarding caloric restriction and Atkins.

There's room for more than one philosophy. And while I respect Finelly immensely and understand the points she's making, I disagree with them. Especially the parts where it is assumed that the weight comes off necessarily faster or that it sidetracks success through falling off the wagon. I'm no more tempted watching cals than I ever was trying to forcefeed myself to BMR. We just won't agree on a lot of that! And that's ok.

That doesn't make her wrong and me right, or vice versa. It just makes for two schools of thought on the subject.

It is so nice that we can have conversations like these at ADBB where we may not all agree. Still, there is always civility, understanding and kindness.

[wannabethintoo]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

My father-in-law doesn't agree with that summation of starvation mode.

As an aside, I do eat when I'm hungry. Some days I eat 1500 calories. Some days I eat 600. We all have hungry and unhungry days. But arbitrarily feeding the body to hit a BMR isn't pragmatic if the body doesn't want it.

I think there are many schools of thought regarding caloric restriction and Atkins.

There's room for more than one philosophy. And while I respect Finelly immensely and understand the points she's making, I disagree with them. Especially the parts where it is assumed that the weight comes off necessarily faster or that it sidetracks success through falling off the wagon. I'm no more tempted watching cals than I ever was trying to forcefeed myself to BMR. We just won't agree on a lot of that! And that's ok.

That doesn't make her wrong and me right, or vice versa. It just makes for two schools of thought on the subject.

It is so nice that we can have conversations like these at ADBB where we may not all agree. Still, there is always civility, understanding and kindness.

And don't forget a lot of running amuk.

[Finelly]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

I never run a muck. Mucks are BAD. Run a track instead!

lol

[Finelly]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

Joking aside, please listen to what Cleo said. She doesn't restrict her calories or lower them. SOME days she eats 600. Others she eats 1500. She doesn't panic if she eats 1500 or even, I assume, 1800 or 2000. So for her, it's about eating until full, not making sure she eats a certain number of calories.

[wannabethintoo]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

I never run a muck. Mucks are BAD. Run a track instead!

lol

Never run amuk? So how do you get your average daily post count to 24.24?

Did you know that I'm trying to beat you but you're the posting queen.

[wannabethintoo]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

Joking aside, please listen to what Cleo said. She doesn't restrict her calories or lower them. SOME days she eats 600. Others she eats 1500. She doesn't panic if she eats 1500 or even, I assume, 1800 or 2000. So for her, it's about eating until full, not making sure she eats a certain number of calories.

Yep. I understand what Cleo is doing. Thanks a lot for caring so much Finelly. You're the greatest!

[Finelly]

Re: Nutri-Nut..calorically speaking

OMG, is my posting count that high?

I think I just talk a lot. And I type as fast as I talk. And I read about 1,000 words a minute, so I can get through a thread in no time.

Possibly all of this happens BECAUSE I NEVER RUN A MUCK! My momma taught me that muck is to be cleaned, not run!