Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 1247719" data-attributes="member: 115">Yeah, they are.  Dropped.  No more fad crap.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Um, that's exactly what the "Caloric Advantage" involves.  That's exactly the theory behind why the Atkins diet works. And the metabolic shift is exactly the shame as the one the body undergoes during starvation.  The body depletes carbs, then depletes fats, and finally proteins.  The Atkins diet cuts out the first step, and stresses the third. Which is why many opponents of the Atkins diet stress the long-term health issues involved.  The human body was never meant to operate in such a way for long periods of time.  In the long-term it's highly likely the Atkins diet is quite harmful. However, like I've said, I've yet to read a study that addresses the long-term effects of the Atkins diet, either for or against.  If one exists, please point me to it, because I'd like to read it.  I apologize for the assumption, it was wrong, and I stand corrected. However, it seems, to me at least, that Dr. Atkins' original message was completely lost along the way, and needs to be bolstered.  The argument makes little sense biologically.  Organisms evolve to optimize benefits in their environment - if this were really an issue, humans would be digesting proteins and fats easier than carbs.  Which is simply not the case. Furthermore, excess dietary carbs are converted by the body into fats, so a person who came into contact with a large carbohydrate source would be able to store it - it's one of the primary functions of the liver. I do believe that losing weight and dieting takes work.  To be completely honest, I'm not averse to the idea of dieting - obviously if you're over-weight, you've got an abundance of fat that will only be lost if you use more calories than you're intaking.  For most people that means you have to reduce your intake.  And to be fair, I don't even think the Atkins diet is completely without merit - certainly it's not the worst of diets that have been out there.  The psychological benefits of eating an equivalent amount of food, more or less by volume, but reducing calories is a strong one.  And the theory behind the diet is strong, especially if applied to people obesely overweight, who have enough fat content that depriving yourself of that energy will not be too terribly harmful, compared to the benefits. However, being a cynic, I firmly believe in the Laziness Factor of people - people take the easiest route possible to attain a goal.  Our modern society has done nothing to reduce this tendancy, and I think it's done a lot to encourage it.  With regards to losing weight, this translates to diets that work quick with a minimum of exercise involved.  Exercise is, IMO, necessary to be healthy.  I think it's far better to get into the habit of exercising daily or every other day than it is to get into the habit of cutting things out of your diet every time you feel you've put on too much weight. One last point to make, I swear.  I think that nutritionists and dieticians have been extremely irresponsible in getting this point across, as well as in supporting the idea of someone being "overweight" if they're five pounds over some magical number.  Overweight is a term that carries with it extremely negative connotations, and I as well as everyone else in this discussion run into its effects daily, especially concerning women.  Hell, that's exactly how this discussion started.  I don't have proof, but I'm willing to bet that the numbers of people with eating disorders have increased greatly in the last fifty or so years, since these numbers were created.</blockquote>

Verification