Not following Atkins?

[forbey]

Re: Not following Atkins?

Are you really an Atkins '72 guy at heart? There's nothing wrong with that. It got me to goal and kept me in maintenance for three-four years from 1984-88! I know plenty of folks who don't do the veggies, so if your argument is with veggies, I'd consider going home to what you love. If it's just a fun debate about Atkins and intentions and rules, that's different.

No Cleochatra, I'm following 2002. I miss the majority of the veggies even more than I miss the pasta and bread. (I'm definitely an omnivore!)

However, I'm fighting keeping my blood sugars down. Although I am off insulin (after taking 200 to 300 units per day). I'm still struggling to keep the numbers normalized.

I do, in fact consume vegetables. I ate a chef salad with oil & vinegar for Lunch yesterday. Partly as an experiment to see if midday carbs would bite as hard as evening ones do. (They were lower at bedtime and in the morning, although they were 130 last night and 134 this morning). Other than some black olives and 2 slices of cheese earlier in the day, those were my only known carbs.

I ate green beans cooked in butter with roasted chicken for dinner a few days ago and woke up with my blood sugars at 189. We had squash one evening and I hit 209 in the morning.

Although, I fully support Dr. Atkin's guideline of liberal fat and protein, I also know he indicated it would take less to feel satiated. That is in fact the case. Where I used to be able to eat 3 to 4 double cheese burgers (no bun or toppings besides mayo) now I get by with 1 or 2. Same with eggs, I was eating 4 eggs 2 slices of cheese, cooked in butter plus 4 slices of bacon. Now I'm eating 2 eggs, 1 slice of cheese and usually no bacon.

So far today, according to FitDay, I'm sitting at 974 calories, 68 grams of fat (62%), 72.5 grams of protein (32%), and 16 grams of carbs (6%). And that includes 4 hardboiled eggs I haven't even eaten yet.

That is close to what I would normally eat up to dinner. (Haven't got that one in the planner yet.)

So while I'm advocating following the rules; for different physiologies, medical circumstances and metabolisms, the rules can result in different meal plans as well. I just don't believe that anyone should tell someone that they aren't doing Atkins if their situation has them eating differently than someone else.

Thanks for the input! Keeps me honest.

forbey

[liv]

Re: Not following Atkins?

Sorry to hear about your condition Farby
Hope you can improve on it.

[cleochatra]

Re: Not following Atkins?

Are you really an Atkins '72 guy at heart? There's nothing wrong with that. It got me to goal and kept me in maintenance for three-four years from 1984-88! I know plenty of folks who don't do the veggies, so if your argument is with veggies, I'd consider going home to what you love. If it's just a fun debate about Atkins and intentions and rules, that's different.

[forbey]

Re: Not following Atkins?

First of all, Liv is a very experienced and knowledgeable member of these boards, and unlikely to say anything out of place.

The entire book reads the information you need. Sure, you can eat very little vegetables in comparison to the rest of protein and fats if you're eating vast, vast amounts, which I think we can all safely assume you're not. The basis of Atkins is simply eating your vegetables which should provide you with your 20g of carbs a day, and no restrictions on the rest (proteins, fats etc). But realistically, who is going to physically be able to eat enough protein or fats to make 20g of carbohydrates from vegetables look minimal? Yes, 20g IS the maximum, but 20g is also provided as a guideline to help you continue your journey post-induction. I won't lie, I have tried to eat zero carbs, and yes, I lost a load of weight. I also regained that weight and then some the moment I tried to increase my carb intake. So when people suggest you follow the 20g rule, there's reasoning behind it. If you don't want to adhere to that, fine, do as you please, learn the hard way as many of us have.

Personally, I cannot understand why people come here to bash other people who are clearly only trying to help. People offer their opinions, offer advice because they have more experience in something than you, and you just complain? We're all free to come and go as we please, and personally, I feel that if you don't like the advice that you receive here, and want to do "Atkins" your own way, you're more than welcome to. There's an X in the top right hand corner.

Let me try and address your comments:

First, I never said Liv or anyone else wasn't experienced. Is she a doctor, is she a research scientist, does she have personal insights into what Dr. Atkins was thinking when he wrote his book? Lots of questions?

The vast majority of what Liv says is outstanding, I apparently hit a nerve on one item that doesn't jive with DANDR, sorry.

We have the folks who insist that tough love is the best help available... except... when that tough love hits closer to home.

It is one thing to want to help people and another to misrepresent the facts.

Here is one, you stated "But realistically, who is going to physically be able to eat enough protein or fats to make 20g of carbohydrates from vegetables look minimal? Yes, 20g IS the maximum, but 20g is also provided as a guideline to help you continue your journey post-induction"

Yes it is a guideline, but the fact is Dr. Atkins provided a maximum amount for induction and provided guidelines for slowly increasing those amounts as you seek to reach maintenance. He NEVER listed a minimum!

He stated of the carbohydrates you eat you should get them from "these" sources. That list grows as you move through the process.

You also said "I won't lie, I have tried to eat zero carbs, and yes, I lost a load of weight. I also regained that weight and then some the moment I tried to increase my carb intake."

Is it POSSIBLE, that in re-introducing your carbs you went too much too fast, OR is it possible, that your specific metabolism simply wasn't ready for the change? Did someone tell you you weren't "doing Atkins"? Or, did you back up, as is the advice in DANDR and rededicate yoursself to the plan?

Again, you stated "Personally, I cannot understand why people come here to bash other people who are clearly only trying to help. People offer their opinions, offer advice because they have more experience in something than you, and you just complain? We're all free to come and go as we please, and personally, I feel that if you don't like the advice that you receive here, and want to do "Atkins" your own way, you're more than welcome to. There's an X in the top right hand corner"

First, I've been "doing Atkins" of an on since 1982. Where does that fit into the "experience" equation and who specifically is designated as the "experience police.?" I also have a Bachaelor of Science in Agriculture, specializing in nutrition. Where does that fit into the "experience" equation.

Second, I usually am present to offer support, comfort, advice and a positive message, and that represents the vast majority of my comments. The next largest group of comments represents goofiness... just cuz I like to! The smallest group of entries has been to complain, criticise or critique others for taking themselves too seriously and misrepresenting the contents od DANDR.

So it is OK to bash someone for coming here and asking for help, you just can't bash the people for offering help that is in conflict with DANDR?

HMMM! Another forum double standard!

Yes, I am free to come and go as I please, and I am free to address comments by some, no one in particular, who make statements as if it is gospel even if it is in conflict with DANDR.

Again, the fact is DANDR is a controlled carb WOE, not a controlled protein or a controlled fat WOE. It is a scintific fact that the human body can survive with absolutely no carbohydrates. (What it needs it will make.) It cannot survive without fat, protein and water.

Some will be able to do induction quite successfully consuming 20 grams of net carbs a day. Others can do fine with more, some require less. While advice is great, it is up to the individual to experiment with their menu until they reach the point where it works for them.

Those who feel the added vegetables work for them are free to present that as their experience and as the plan that works for them. Those who found that their need to restrict the carbs more tightly are free to present that as well. With that, and suggestions to tweak their plan, the forum inquirer can use the advice of others to help get themselves on track.

Throughout the whole gammit of zero carbs to ???. If you are controlling it by following the guidance of Dr. Atkins, specifically, DANDR02. Then you are following Atkins. If your success rate is not as high as you would like, then the advise of others comes in handy in adjusting your program. But you are still following Atkins.

Why would anyone then tell someone they aren't doing Atkins?

I'm off to lunch! Or, maybe out to lunch!

forbey

[stephbob]

Re: Not following Atkins?

First of all, Liv is a very experienced and knowledgeable member of these boards, and unlikely to say anything out of place.

The entire book reads the information you need. Sure, you can eat very little vegetables in comparison to the rest of protein and fats if you're eating vast, vast amounts, which I think we can all safely assume you're not. The basis of Atkins is simply eating your vegetables which should provide you with your 20g of carbs a day, and no restrictions on the rest (proteins, fats etc). But realistically, who is going to physically be able to eat enough protein or fats to make 20g of carbohydrates from vegetables look minimal? Yes, 20g IS the maximum, but 20g is also provided as a guideline to help you continue your journey post-induction. I won't lie, I have tried to eat zero carbs, and yes, I lost a load of weight. I also regained that weight and then some the moment I tried to increase my carb intake. So when people suggest you follow the 20g rule, there's reasoning behind it. If you don't want to adhere to that, fine, do as you please, learn the hard way as many of us have.

Personally, I cannot understand why people come here to bash other people who are clearly only trying to help. People offer their opinions, offer advice because they have more experience in something than you, and you just complain? We're all free to come and go as we please, and personally, I feel that if you don't like the advice that you receive here, and want to do "Atkins" your own way, you're more than welcome to. There's an X in the top right hand corner.

[forbey]

Re: Not following Atkins?

Not a fight, just a fact, Atkins is and has always been a low carbohydrate WOE. Emphasizing eating fats to get the lypolysis started, sufficient protein to satisfy hunger and a controlled amount of appropriately chosen vegetables and other foods as appropriate. In every book he wrote and in ADR which was finished for him after he died, Dr. Atkins emphasized the "eat LIBERALLY of fats and proteins until satiated and not stuffed." ALL the specific guidelines included in his books to identify limits are placed on the carbohydrates included in the daily meal plans. That clearly makes this a controlled carbohydrate WOE, not a controlled protein plan. The primary control put on proteins is the feeling of excess.

We have way too many here who in one forum entry are more than happy to chastise others for referencing other editions of Atkins books or other materials with a quick "We're a DANDR02 forum." Then follow another thread with entries passing judgement on what others are doing as "not doing Atkins" and inserting personal opinion as "Atkins fact".

One of the critiques made by Dr. Atkins was that frequently people failing on other diets are blamed by their health care professionals for not following the plan, cheating or pigging out. Even though he understood that some follow their diets to the T and still gain, or at least don't loose weight. Yet some here appear to make the same judgement call on those trying to follow Atkins. The fact is, some people just have to modify, one way or the other, to get the plan to work for them.

I have no problem with what you eat, enjoy yourself, if it works for you fine. It doesn't mean that the same meal plan will work for everyone.

I have no problem with members asking for menu listings to help others figure out why they aren't loosing. I have no problem suggesting that some one cut back on protein (because too much protein can result in increases in blood sugar and increases in insulin production). But it isn't a hardfast rule, it is an individual thing.

I do have a problem with some who insist on telling others what they are or are not doing, being "not Atkins" or wrong.

For me, if I ate what you ate on the above food list, my blood sugars would be through the roof. My metabolism is extremely sensitive to carbs. So when following Atkins, for me, I keep my carbs rediculously low, because to do otherwise would be to jeapardize what I have accomplished in controlling my diabetes and I've gone too far to screw that up now.

Do what you can to help others with their program without redefining Atkins.

Feel free to take that personally, or take it as advice, be helpful, without being sanctimonious.

forbey

(not Forbey, not Mr. Forbey, just forbey. Afterall, it's a forum name not my name.)

[Georgiana]

Re: Not following Atkins?

there is an entire chapter on the appropriate time and use of a period of ZERO carbs. This chapter discusses what he called the "fat fast".

The Fat Fast is not "ZERO carbs".

[liv]

Re: Not following Atkins?

Here is a couple of meals I had yesterday. You tell me if they qualify with your definition of Atkins Mr Forbey

Spinach salad - It is a a lot of greens - many cups with a generous sprinkle of roasted almond bits, some blue cheese and some strawberries with my homemade vinagrette (just olive oil and red wine vinegar)
Pork loin supper: Pork loin (maybe 225 gr), cauliflower bake (recipe here) and a salad with greens, cucumber and red pepper). Mostly veggies on that plate by looking on it. Most of the fat was in the cauliflower bake

Now it is your turn - how does your perfect Atkins day look like

[liv]

Re: Not following Atkins?

Are you looking for an argument today
It is a good day for one.
I meant if you stuff yourself with those things you're on the wrong path. I agree that we eat lots of fat in a calorie amounts (not necessarily in gram amounts. Fat is dense stuff) I do not eat a whole pile of protein though and you should not either. You do not need a whole pile of protein.

I don't think you need to eat to cups of greens - it is 2 cups from the salad list and not all those veggies are green. My favourites are jicma, red peppers and mushrooms.

And because veggies are bulky they really take up a lot of space on my plate. So just visually I eat a lot of vegetables. And on OWL most of carbs most days comes from vegetables.

And don't twist the meaning of what I was saying please. I may not have been super clear in which case I apologize.

[forbey]

I think if you ate lots of fat and protein and very little veggies you were not really doing Atkins. In volume most of what I eat are vegetables every day. I eat one serving of proten and two serving of vegetables every supper. If you looked at my plate you would see vegetables We should not eat high protein on Atkins - we keep protein relative moderate. It is very healthy eating especially if we keep concentrating on whole unprocessed foods which I think most of us do.
I wish you luck with your NEW chosen Way of Eating. It does sounds like how I am eating and I think that is healthy

Would someone please tell me on what page I find a sentence that says "I think if you ate lots of fat and protein and very little veggies you were not really doing Atkins."

Contrary to popular belief, Dr. Atkins wrote something to the effect that you should "eat liberally of fats and proteins until you feel satiated, not stuffed."

Depending on what level you are on in Atkins you are starting with 3 cups of loosely packed salad greens, or 2 cups greens and one cup vegetables. From there as you increase your carbohydrates you should do so manly with quality carbohydrates from the appropriate list of vegetables (and the other food groupings as you move up the rungs.)

No where in DANDR02 (or any other edition) does Dr. Atkins say this is a high vegetable diet with just a little meat.

The concentration should be on replacing carbohydrates as your fuel source by increasing quality fats and eating sufficient protein to satisfy your appetite.

In addition, the limitations on carbohydrates states "a maximum of 20 net carbs." Based on mathematical analysis of the statement "maximum" the equation "less than or equal to 20" would be appropriate, that category INCLUDES the number ZERO. I've read the book twice from cover to cover and browsed through the pages of the book, at no time did I ever find a statement that read "all meat and fat" was evil or constituted not following Atkins. However, there is an entire chapter on the appropriate time and use of a period of ZERO carbs. This chapter discusses what he called the "fat fast".

Any reference to a diet high in vegetables, low (or moderate) in protein and fat. In my opinion is NOT following Atkins.

The above quoted statement is also an opinion. An opinion not necessarily supported in the pages on DANDR02.

I whole heartedly support the notion that following Atkins DANDR02 is fine, just quit forcing personal opinions on those asking questions as if Dr. Atkins presented revelations from the grave.

My sincerest apologies to all for my abruptness, I will attempt to avoid climbing onto the soap box in the future.

forbay