Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Cyclic Ketogenic Diet

By collideiscope in Culture
Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 03:24:16 AM EST
Tags: Food (all tags)
Food

This article is being written in response to an article here on K5 that addresses low-carbohydrate diets (specifically, the Atkins diet).

What I hope to do with this article is introduce the reader to the Cycling (or Cyclic) Ketogenic Diet (CKD), a specific type of ketogenic diet that suffers neither the drawbacks of Atkins nor the typical "burn-out" rate of most other diets.

I want to make it clear that I do not think the CKD is the be-all and end-all of diets. Like most diets, it has some drawbacks that need to be considered in light of each individual's health and fitness goals.

I do believe it is a highly successful alternative to the more popularized diets on the market today, and should be significantly easier on your pocketbook.


Dieting 101

People start diets for all sorts of reasons, but fundamentally, most folks who start controlling their food intake do so in order to lose weight. What most of them want to do, in fact, is lose fat weight; that is, reduce the amount of fat they carry on their bodies. You hear plenty of people express concern about being "overweight", but what they really ought to be concerned about is whether or not they are overfat, or carrying an excessive amount of bodyfat for their age, height, religious affiliation, etc.

What qualifies as an excessive amount of fat? That's for a doctor or nutritionist to decide, based on the above factors. For the record, only about 3% of total bodyweight in fat weight is considered essential fat for men; the figure is 9-12% for woman. It is important to note that although we wouldn't be able to live for very long if we dropped below this "essential fat" level, it is not by any means considered "healthy" to remove all but the "essential" fat.

Having said that, some dieters may not care if they lose fat weight, as long as they lose weight. Bully for them. For those of us who do want to lose fat weight in particular, any diet that looks only at total bodyweight lost is naturally inferior to a diet that looks at what sort of body weight is lost. The CKD is one of the latter, in that it attempts to maximize fat loss and minimize lean tissue loss, through a variety of techniques that we'll cover later. For now, let's look at the basic mechanism that allows us to lose fat weight at all: calorie restriction.

It's obvious enough to be almost self-evident. If you want to lose weight, you must create a caloric deficit. In other words, you must expend more energy than you take in. This can be accomplished by eating less food, exerting yourself more, or a combination of the two (the last generally being the most effective). For right now, let's look just at calorie restricting.

In order to eat hypocalorically, we must first have an idea of about how many calories we burn in the course of an average day. Now, there are all sorts of calculators out there for determining this number. Most of them are based on estimates, most of which are in turn based on statistical averages, some of which are based on other estimates. The bottom line is, none of the calculators will be very precise, so you might as well use something a little easier to remember: take your present bodyweight, in pounds, and multiply it by 14 or 15. That resulting number is your "maintenance calories" - the number of calories you have to take in, per day, to maintain your current bodyweight. Yes, this is a rough approximation, but it's not so rough as to be useless.

Once you've got your maintenance calories, multiply your bodyweight (again in pounds) by 11 or 12. This is a good caloric level at which to start your diet. Aim to take in about this many calories per day, and you'll begin to lose weight. How much weight? Consider that there are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, and divide that number by your total daily caloric deficit. Take a hypothetical dieter who weighs 185 lbs. His mainetnance level is 2,590 (BW x 14), his dieting level is 2,035 (BW x 11) - so he'll be running a deficit of 555 calories per day if he eats 2,035 calories consistently. At this rate, it will take him 6.3 days to burn off the number of calories contained in a single pound of fat, or a little over a month (31.5 days) if he wants to loose 5 pounds of fat.

Of course, this is a highly contrived example. Someone who has created a 500-calorie-per-day deficit will probably not be making up that entire deficit with stored fat. There are also other factors to consider - the thermic effect of food, activity level on each day, etc. - but even ignoring those factors, these calculations can give you a rough outline of how your fat loss will proceed. They were never intended to do anything more.

Remember, also, that losing at a rate of 2 lbs / week or more is generally not a healthy or sustainable practice. The more gradually you lose the weight, the more likely it is that you will keep it off for the long term.

Of course, an important part of this is counting calories. Unless we're already dieting, most of us have only a general idea of how many calories we take in during a given day. Some people recommend that individuals just start counting the caloric content of everything that goes into their mouths, but I find this tedious. An easier way may be to sit down with a calorie chart or FitDay and figure out what a given combination of foods would gross calorically. Then, you have a rough idea of what you can eat in any given day and still hit your caloric target.


Fundamentals of the Ketogenic Diet

In practical terms, any diet that includes fewer than 100 grams of carbohydrates per day can be said to be ketogenic. To give you some background on how a ketogenic diet works: our bodies use glycogen as the primary source of fuel most of the time. Glycogen is the polymeric form of glucose, which we get from the carbohydrates in our diets. It can also be produced by gluconeogenesis, but that goes a bit beyond the scope of this article.

Our bodies store glycogen primarily in the liver and skeletal muscles.

If we eat plenty of carbohydrates, the body gets enough glycogen to use it almost exclusively for energy. Once we stop eating carbs and the glycogen is depleted, the body begins using other fuels, including free fatty acids (FFAs). This is fine for most of our bodily systems, but there are some organs in the body (the brain and central nervous system, for example) that cannot utilize FFAs. These organs can, however, use ketone bodies, which are produced to break down fat stores and use them for energy in a process called ketosis.

It should be noted that when we talk about ketogenic diets or "inducing ketosis", we are talking about ketosis-lipolysis, not ketosis-acidosis. Ketosis-acidosis is a potentially dangerous state that occurs primarily in diabetics (as DKA) as a result of reduced circulating insulin and a simultaneous increase in fatty acid oxidation, the combination of which acidifies the blood. Alcoholics who binge and fast are also at risk for another type of ketosis-acidosis related to ethanol metabolism.

For the average non-diabetic, non-fasting, non-binging Joe or Jane, ketosis-acidosis should not be a concern.

Ketosis-lipolysis, on the other hand, is the point of any ketogenic diet, because it results in a greater utilization of stored fat (the lipolysis part, which just means "fat burning").

Now that we have all that out of the way, let's get into the actual meat of the cycling ketogenic diet and what it does for you.


The Benefits of Ketogenic Diets

To my mind, there are two main benefits of ketogenic dieting. They are:

1) Easy(er) caloric restriction
2) Muscle maintenance

=Caloric Restriction=
A greater degree of satiety usually results from diets higher in protein and fats. Because of this, a lot of folks find it easier to control calories on strictly ketogenic diets than on the typical American Snackwells / Healthy Choice diet that is extremely low in fat, but extremely high in "empty" carbohydrates. By "empty" carbohydrates, I refer to simple or refined foods that produce very little, if any, feelings of satiety.

For anyone who questions the validity of this, I invite you to buy one (1) box of Kellogs Smacks and twelve (12) cans of generic Chunk Light Tuna. Try eating the entire box of cereal in one sitting. The next day, try eating all twelve cans of tuna in one sitting. You may not be able to finish either, but I'm willing to bet you'll get significantly farther with the cereal. These two food choices have a nearly identical total calorie count, but grossly different macronutrient ratios.

This is not to say that simply eating protein and fat will make caloric restriction a snap. If your metabolism is geared to a higher caloric intake or you haven't dieted for a while (or ever), it will still be a challenge to eat a consistently hypocaloric diet. The ketogenic diet doesn't promise to make it easy, but a lot of individuals have reported that it does make things easier. This, given that the whole diet game is frequently anything but "easy", is saying something.

=Muscle Maintenance=
In my opinion, the second most important consideration in a diet (after maintaining hypocaloric intake) is getting adequate protein. I feel that the only type of ketogenic diet worth embarking on is one that provides adequate protein to the dieter. There are other ketogenic diets -- the Atkins diet, for example -- that can be ketogenic, while not providing adequate protein. To my mind, there is no point in a ketogenic diet that does not fulfill basic protein requirements, as it is almost guaranteed to be overfeeding fat -- which runs contrary to the goal of a diet.

Most sources agree that sedentary individuals should consume at least 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of lean body mass daily. More active individuals, and especially those looking to increase muscle mass and strength, should consume in the range of 1.6 to 1.8 grams per kilogram. This is roughly equal to .8 - 1.0 grams per pound, so a lot of folks just round this to 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight, with good results.

My experience has been that if you set up a ketogenic diet with the express goal of achieving this recommended protein intake, controlling calories becomes easy. Start with your protein intake, add essential fatty acids, and finish off whatever calories are left with carbohydrates.

For those individuals who are specifically concerned with maintaining or building muscle mass and maintaining strength (athletes of all types, weightlifters/powerlifters, etc), dieting brings with it the attendant risk of lean body mass loss. In a hypocaloric situation, the energy has to come from somewhere, and in particularly lean individuals, odds are good that it will come from lean body mass as well as fat tissue. Getting adequate protein can, to some extent, minimize this catabolic effect. In fact, studies have shown that a hypocaloric, high-protein diet - in other words, a ketogenic diet with adequate protein - is actually protein-sparing, above about 15% bodyfat.


What is a Cyclic Ketogenic Diet?

Just like it sounds, a Cycic/ing Ketogenic Diet is a ketogenic diet that cycles. In other words, this is not a diet you do day in, day out for X number of weeks, months or years: it is a diet that you break frequently. In fact, it is the only diet (that I'm aware of, at least) that you are supposed to break, and break often.

Anyone who has ever been in ketosis - for that matter, anyone who has ever tried low-carb eating for a few days - should be able to tell intuitively why the CKD exists. Being in ketosis is rarely enjoyable. For the first few weeks, there is an adaptation period during which most people report feeling run-down, depleted, "wasted", exhausted and / or tired. The slightest exertion (such as walking up a steep hill) causes muscles to burn. People feel irritable, out of sorts, and unable to make decisions.

If this was how you felt all the time in ketosis, it seems that few but the truly dedicated bodybuilders would do it. For most people these feelings disappear after the adaptation period, however, and are replaced with feelings of calm and more balanced, consistent energy. Not everyone is dedicated enough to wait long enough for the body to adjust, so the potential for burnout on a non-cyclic ketogenic diet (ie Atkins) can be high.

People crave carbohydrates during ketosis, for psychological as well as physiological reasons, and often what they most want are exactly the sort of high-glycemic, nutrient-devoid simple carbs that they were accustomed to eating before starting the diet. If you are maintaining a hypocaloric ketogenic diet, this temptation becomes even stronger, as the carb cravings are combined with the usual hunger pangs that accompany reduced calories.

A CKD offers a way to combat this. It offers a cyclical "refeed" (sometimes also called a carb-up). What happens during a refeed is that the dieting individual will change their diet to comprise mostly complex carbohydrates, limiting dietary fats as well as sucrose and fructose. Since the glycogen stores in their liver and muscles are depleted, these carbohydrates go straight to refilling them, instead of being added to the body's fat stores. For this reason, the amount of calories consumed during a refeed can be far above an individual's maintenance intake.

The goals of a refeed are threefold:

a) to refill depleted glycogen stores
b) to upregulate hormones and thyroid activity that is depressed during dieting
c) to provide a psychological "break" that makes the rest of the diet easier to bear

While both A and B are important physiologically, C is the linchpin of the CKD. If you know you'll be able to binge on bagels and milk in the near future, it makes adhering to your diet that much easier.

A refeed is also potentially dangerous, inasmuch as a careless individual can end up gaining fat, instead of merely achieving the three goals listed above. If you eat enough carbs to refill your glycogen stores and then some, you will get spillover into fat cells.

So, although a refeed is a much-needed respite after a long stretch of ketosis, the timing, duration and macronutrient composition of a refeed are crucial to the diet's overall success.

Guidelines for the Refeed

=Frequency=
The frequency of a refeed will vary, based on a variety of factors unique to each individual. The general guideline is that the leaner you are, the more frequently you will need to refeed. This is for reasons related to hormone upregulation.

A crude schedule for refeeding frequency follows:

for % body fat..............refeed:
>10%......................every 5th day
10-15%...................every 7th day
15%+......................every 15th day

These numbers provide a rough starting point only, and are by no means definitive. Like many aspects of a diet, you should experiment and see what works for you.

And, for those of us who don't have any idea what our present bodyfat percentage is (and don't have a handy pair of calipers), here's another rough guideline for deciding when it's time to refeed. While you are eating hypocaloric, you will start getting hungry (this is especially true on a hypocaloric ketogenic diet, as you have carb cravings to deal with as well). Eventually, you will cross a line from just being "hungry" all the time to being ravenously hungry and almost unable to think about anything else. You may also start having vivid dreams about food and eating. When this happens, you can generally be safe in the assumption that it's time to start a refeed.

=Duration=
In general, a refeed should not be longer than 36 hours. For many folks, the most convenient refeed period is the weekend. A hypothetical CKD'er could be hypocaloric throughout the week, and then start her refeed on Saturday morning and finish it with lunch on Sunday. Of course, this can be fudged a bit, depending on how careful one is with their actual food intake. There is a rough relationship between caloric intake and duration in that someone who wants to refeed more, faster, should probably also refeed for a shorter total period of time in order to avoid fat spillover.

The bottom line is your refeed duration should be governed by your targeted caloric intake. Once you've hit your calorie target, you're done refeeding - so if you want to refeed longer, eat slower. We'll discuss guidelines for setting your refeed calorie target below.

=Macronutrient Composition=
As mentioned above, the primary component of a good refeed is complex, low-glycemic carbohydrates. Fructose and sucrose (and all simple sugars) should be limited as much as possible: ideally, fructose intake should be less than 50g and sucrose less than 100g. Dietary fat should also be kept low, typically under 50g.

=Caloric Intake=
So, a refeed means you can eat as much as you want? Not quite. There is a maximum upper limit in terms of calories that you shouldn't push past: it is about 16-18 grams of carbs per pound of bodyweight. So our hypothetical CKDer who weighs 185 lbs would theoretically be safe eating 2,960 grams of complex carbs on his refeed day. If he also takes in some dietary fats or protein, that number would come down to allow for those other nutrients. Remember: fat is 9 calories to the gram, carbs and protein are both 4.


The Hidden Recommendation: Weight Training

Okay, I'll come clean. As an amateur bodybuilder and boxer, I've had experience with CKD, non-cyclic ketogenic diets, and non-ketogenic hypocaloric diets, both in and out of weight and boxing training.

And, from all my experiences, I can say that I believe that the effectiveness of a CKD will be maximized by weight training. I feel it is a necessity if one wants to minimize lean tissue loss. If you already weight train, great; try implementing a CKD and watch your results.

If you don't train and want to get started, well, that's another issue that goes beyond the scope of this article, but I'd advise you to check out the myriad online resources to get some ideas on how to proceed.


The Vegetable Question

"But," I hear you say, "Less than 100g of carbs per day doesn't give me much room for fruits or vegetables.....both of which are essential, as everyone knows, for a healthy and well-balanced diet."

This is true. I won't debate that fruits and vegetables are good for you (vegetables in particular), and I'm not asking you to cut them out of your diet. I would recommend, in fact, that if you are eating 50-100g of carbs per day, you get the majority of them from vegetables, particularly dark, leafy vegetables high in fiber. Sure, a few slices of bread at 35g / slice are tempting, but you will get more raw nutrients from the veggies.

What about kidney damage, then? What about cancer, cholesterol and cardiac arrest?

Well, what about them? If you're worried about what a ketogenic diet might do to your long-term health, remember that nobody says you have to stay on a CKD for the rest of your life. If you are currently overweight and need to drop a considerable amount of weight, give it a try and see if you like the results. If it works for you, use it to get down to your target weight and bodyfat % level, then implement a more long-term, balanced diet and exercise plan to maintain those levels. The diet that is going to work in the long term is the one that you can adhere to in the long term. Remember: moderation in all things, including moderation.


The Final Word...Finally

A CKD is not for everyone, nor it is a "magic" diet that will guarantee you good results. At best, it is a way to assist you in your fat loss goals by improving satiety and thereby aiding restricted calories, improve adherence by providing frequent breaks, and targeting bodyweight loss to adipose tissue by virtue of increased protein consumption. Many people have gotten good results from a CKD, but that is no guarantee that you will.

Regardless, the most important thing you can do for your health is to be informed. Follow the links in this article and below, hit the newsgroups, do some independent research at your local library. If you don't like the idea of a CKD for any reason, come up with your own diet plan and give it a try. If it doesn't work, change it until it does. This is all you really have to do to achieve your health goals.

DISCLAIMER: I take no responsibility for any health damage you may suffer on this or any other diet. Consult with a qualified, informed doctor or nutritionist -- in other words, someone who knows what they're talking about, not someone who has just memorized the USDA food pyramid -- before making any major dietary changes.


Further Reading

=Diet=
Nutrition.org

The Easy Gourmet's Nutrition Information

The Glycemic Institute

Rick Mendosa, Diabetes Consultant

The Ketogenic Diet - Lyle McDonald

=Exercise=
ExRx.net

Bodyweight Conditioning

Misc.Fitness.Weights FAQ

Weights by Mistress Krista

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o article
o calculator s
o calorie chart
o FitDay
o gluconeoge nesis
o ketosis
o ketosis-ac idosis
o sources
o catabolic
o studies
o hormone upregulation
o low-glycem ic
o online
o resources
o Nutrition. org
o The Easy Gourmet's Nutrition Information
o The Glycemic Institute
o Rick Mendosa, Diabetes Consultant
o The Ketogenic Diet
o Lyle McDonald
o ExRx.net
o Bodyweight Conditioning
o Misc.Fitne ss.Weights FAQ
o Weights by Mistress Krista
o Also by collideiscope


Display: Sort:
The Cyclic Ketogenic Diet | 112 comments (109 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Why'd you pull the old article? (3.75 / 4) (#1)
by curien on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 01:25:40 PM EST

Link to the old comments.

--
John Ashcroft hates me for my freedom.
Thanks.... (4.00 / 2) (#2)
by collideiscope on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 03:07:31 PM EST

I just figured it had spent enough time in the editing queue, so I pulled it, made some more edits, and resubmitted it for voting this morning.

Sorry if I didn't follow SOP, I was also sort of bummed when realized I'd lost the comments. Thanks for linking.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

My BS meter just pegged (4.66 / 9) (#3)
by Anonymous 242 on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 05:42:15 PM EST

suffers neither the drawbacks of Atkins nor the typical "burn-out" rate of most other diets.
What studies have been done that suggest that this diet has a smaller drop out rate than other diets? About a year and half ago, Consumers Union did a large study of their members that tried dieting. Two things were noticable: drop off rates were about the same for all types of diets and people that kept weight off for at least a year added daily aerobic exercise to their lives in addition to the diets.

no studies, that's how many (3.66 / 3) (#6)
by collideiscope on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 10:48:01 PM EST

All a study is going to tell you is whether or not it worked for a bunch of other people you'll never meet, and in the final analysis all that matters is whether it works for you.

My justification for writing the sentence in question was just this: the CKD is built around the principle that everybody cheats; for most folks, cheating comes naturally, so the CDK works better for them. You may not be one of these people - you'd have to try it for yourself to be sure.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

It's nice to know the theoretical underpinnings (3.33 / 6) (#8)
by Anonymous 242 on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 10:57:18 PM EST

All a study is going to tell you is whether or not it worked for a bunch of other people you'll never meet, and in the final analysis all that matters is whether it works for you.
That's a crock. Studies can tell us many things the foremost of which is if the diet is based on good science. They can also tell us how easy it is on average for people to stay on a diet. They can also tell us if the diet works long term for people that stay on it. For example, studies show us that many people on the Atkins diet tend to hit a plateau with regards to weight loss after about forty pounds. This can be useful in deciding whether or not to choose that particular diet.
the CKD is built around the principle that everybody cheats; for most folks, cheating comes naturally
Let me tell you a secret. Whether or not one cheats doesn't matter for most diets.

[ Parent ]
the real question is (4.00 / 3) (#9)
by collideiscope on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 11:29:49 PM EST

...are you interested in expanding your knowledge and your mind and admitting new information (that just may contradict your previous understandings)?

If so, knock yourself out.

If not, I can't help you.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]
Let's Try Some Diets (2.40 / 5) (#22)
by pmc on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 07:16:01 AM EST

Firstly, the "Apple and Oyster" diet. OK, there are no studies to support this, but what they hell - if it works for you.

Hmm - that failed. Lets try the "Distilled water, cheese, and radish" diet. Again, there are no studies, but you're expanding you knowledge, and what the hell, if it works for you.

Another failure! You must have a stange metabolism. Let's try the special "Seaweed, Bagels, and Chick Pea" diet - good for those awkward people with awkward metabolisms. Sadly, no studies of this one either, but people with odd metabolisms are unusual, so you'd expect that. And all that really matters is if it works for you, right?

Damn, another failure. With your metabolism we need to try something special - "The oscillating diet". It's simple - all you do is not eat certain foods on some days, but you can binge eat on other days. No studies, but trust me - it's a winner.

Hmm - I can see you're a real hard case. OK - last try - time to bring out the big guns. We're going to try "The Balanced Diet". There are lots of studies backing this one up, and just about everyone who eats a balanced diet isn't fat. Do you think that you are ready for it?

What's that - the balanced diet failed? I'm stunned. The only way the balanced diet will fail is if you eat too much. I think the problem with you is that you eat too much. You should try the balanced diet and some exercise.

[ Parent ]

oh, no! (4.66 / 3) (#42)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 02:14:29 PM EST

the "Balanced Diet With Some Exercise" failed! I'm only eating 1200 kcal / day, I'm running 5 miles / day, and I'm still piling on the weight! What must I do? What "metabolically-advantaged" diet can I try next!?

Look, you're attacking a straw man. I wrote an article in order to inform folks about the CKD. I didn't ask anyone to buy my book. I didn't urge anyone to leap into a CKD. In fact, I expressly said that it was

not for everyone

And I asked everyone to consult their doctor, their local library, and their own independent research before embarking on any diet plan.

I don't see what the problem is. You don't seem to like the idea of a CKD. That's fine; I didn't write the articlce because I was trying to convert the world to my perspective.

So unless you're prepared to whip out a full laboratory with comprehensive, balanced set of studies that will be peer-reviewed and published in medical journals, you're not going to prove to me or anyone else that the CKD is anything but what I've said it is, so you might as well stop wasting your time trying.  

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

My likes and dislikes (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by pmc on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 06:20:21 PM EST

the "Balanced Diet With Some Exercise" failed! I'm only eating 1200 kcal / day, I'm running 5 miles / day, and I'm still piling on the weight! What must I do?

See a doctor - you are a medical miracle. You have broken the laws of conservation of energy. Or possibly you are not being entirely accurate with your calorific intake, unlikely as it sounds. Seriously - if you are putting on weight at 1200 calories a day see a doctor now.

I don't see what the problem is. You don't seem to like the idea of a CKD.

To be honest I don't give a monkeys about the CKD diet, or the F-plan diet, or the atkins diet, or weightwatchers, or any of the 10,000 other diets that kick about the recesses of the internet and the quackery shelves of bookshops. The idea I don't like (and it is a pretty mild dislike) is the mindless quest for the elixer of dieting - that magic combination of ingredients that allows people to attain the perfect body shape whilst convincing themselves that they are eating exactly what they want. Oh - and the zealotry that goes behind it - Carbohydrates are EVIL.

You see, I have a sister who is a) grossly obese (and I'm talking BMI easily more that 40) and b) constantly "diets", by which I mean swings from one fad to another faster than a hyperactive pendulum. She has many friends in the same way, and to be honest I was pretty overweight until I saw the light. You see, fat people (and I still count myself amoungst them) lie to themselves. We are big boned, we have slow metabolisms, our jobs impact our weight badly, little ailments stop us exercising, and, more than any other lie, that diet doesn't work.

The light is simple - I'm not special. You're probably not special. Almost everybody who is overweight is not special. Sure, there are a very few special cases, but most people are overweight because they a) eat to much and b) exercise too little. Less of the food, more of the exercise, and, lord, it must be a miracle, you become less fat, and fitter into the bargain.

Going back to myself I started exercising and modified my diet slightly (more bread rolls, and fewer chocolate bars and crisps - chips to our American cousins) about January, and since then I've been losing about 2.5kg per month, which is about 1lb a week. And I'm now officially just overweight with a BMI of 29.9, which I worked out about 10 seconds ago. And I'm fitter - a VO2 of about 56ml/kg/min, which is pretty good for a fat 38 year old (up from about 33 in January).

So, if you, or anyone else who's got to the end of this quasi-rantette, needs to loose weight you can diet - pick one at random, or carefully select, it won't matter. Follow it, and you will lose weight. Great. You have reached your dream weight. You are thin. Now what? When you come off the diet, as you will, the only way is up. Here is a great quote from Dr Barbara Moore of Weightwatchers, talking about how to judge the long term success of diets:

I take issue with their total fixation on weight in terms of pounds. Weight loss is not the only measure of success.
Sheer genius. How dare people even dream about judging the long term success of a diet plan by how much weight people lose in the long term? It's just so unfair.

You have a choice - you can make a long term commitment and lose weight through a sustainable lifestyle change, or you can lose weight by dieting. But if you diet don't throw out those clothes that get too big for you. You quite probably will be needing them again in the not so distant future.

[ Parent ]

That's a little out of context (none / 0) (#69)
by Karmakaze on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 08:48:56 AM EST

Here is a great quote from Dr Barbara Moore of Weightwatchers, talking about how to judge the long term success of diets:
I take issue with their total fixation on weight in terms of pounds. Weight loss is not the only measure of success.
Sheer genius. How dare people even dream about judging the long term success of a diet plan by how much weight people lose in the long term? It's just so unfair.

Actually, the point of that comment is that weight-in-pounds is not the only measurement of fitness.  It's also useful to consider how you feel, increased ensurance, fit of clothing, and so forth.  After all, the point of dieting is not to have a smaller number to print on your driver's license, but to look and feel better.

What she's saying is that obsessing over the number on the scale to the exlcusion of all else is not as healthy as considering general fitness along with it.  I can tell you from experience that you can lose inches and without losing pounds (muscle is denser than fat) - you're thinner and healthier after that happens, but the pound-obsessed would still call that a failure.
--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]

Not really out of context (3.00 / 1) (#70)
by pmc on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 09:37:15 AM EST

With weightwatchers their goal, their methods, and their entire focus is losing weight. The clue, after all, is in the name. And the slogan "Weightwatchers - Start losing weight today" is another hint. Yet they are either unable or unwilling to produce evidence to show that their diet leads to a long term weight loss for their clients.

Now if they were called "Healthwatchers" and one of a suite of goals was loss of weight then I'd have some sympathy with this line of argument. But when your success criterion for your clients in the short term is weight loss - the weekly weigh-in - I don't think it's unreasonable to use the same criterion for long-term success. And to castigate Weightwatchers when they fail to demonstrably deliver long-term success.

[ Parent ]

talking past each other? (none / 0) (#101)
by collideiscope on Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 12:35:49 PM EST

You have a choice - you can make a long term commitment and lose weight through a sustainable lifestyle change, or you can lose weight by dieting. But if you diet don't throw out those clothes that get too big for you. You quite probably will be needing them again in the not so distant future.

I think our orientations toward "fat loss" are entirely different. Your primary concern seems to be long-term weight loss, and I will openly admit that I'm only using this diet to cut out up my abs every six months.

So, really, the only reason I have ever had to throw out clothes is because they wear out or go out of style.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

WRT your link (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by Anonymous 242 on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 07:50:02 AM EST

The only articles that showed up on a search for "Cyclic Ketogenic Diet" were about altering the metabolism of rats through different drugs.

I'm not certain as to how that has to do with anything related to the topic.

[ Parent ]

'ketogenic diet' is your search string (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 12:58:04 PM EST

Drop it in and you should get about 300-odd results.

Since there's a lot of kruft in there (a lot of which is related to epilepsy research), I'll pick out some good ones for you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=10872901&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=9417152&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=8807563&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=7934983&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=1615896&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=1556948&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=4037162&dopt=Abstract

Some of these are a bit crap, I'll admit, due to either using self-reported caloric intakes (which are notoriously and wildly innaccurate) and/or using a ridiculously small number of participants (you can see this in Willi, Oexmann et all (2nd link down)), and/or only measuring body composition changes for 2 or 3 weeks. A lot of these studies also do not address refeed or meta-refeeds (ie eating for a few weeks at maintenance every month or so).

This is all somewhat besides the point, though. I think you're looking for studies that will tell you, "Yes, you can do the ketogenic diet, and you will loose more weight, and keep it off longer, than the majority of diets around." Such studies don't exist. They haven't been done. The medical community is primarily interested in ketosis for its positive anticonvulsant effects (hence all the epilepsy research), NOT as a protein-sparing short-term diet.

In other words, you'll have to wait a few years before you get the studies you want.

Of course, you could always just try it for yourself and see if it works, but that's rather rash - you might risk wasting your time.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

oh and BTW (3.50 / 2) (#43)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 02:24:53 PM EST

Yes, you can do the ketogenic diet, and you will loose more weight, and keep it off longer, than the majority of diets around

Just so you don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying the above is true.

The original sentence that seemed to bother you

What I hope to do with this article is introduce the reader to the Cycling (or Cyclic) Ketogenic Diet (CKD), a specific type of ketogenic diet that suffers neither the drawbacks of Atkins nor the typical "burn-out" rate of most other diets.

I have no idea of the relationship between CKD burnout and the burnout rates of all other diets. So, if you wanted to be pedantic, you could say that this is an "unsubstantiated claim". I should have prefaced that sentence by adding "a specific type of diet that [I believe] suffers neither the drawbacks" etc. Let it be known, now that the I believe is implied, even if left unstated.

I have no real interest in addressing the relationship between actual CKD adherence rates and actual adherence rates for all other diets. Obviously, I think CKD adherence is higher, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to write the article. But adherence rates for the general populace don't matter to me, because the CKD works for me (and several others I know).

I also have no interest, monetary or otherwise, in getting anyone else to try the CKD - apart from the fact that they may find it useful in short-term fat loss.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

All things remaining equal (2.00 / 2) (#46)
by Anonymous 242 on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 05:32:55 PM EST

Between your condescending tone and your rash assumptions, I wish that I had voted -1 instead of +1. FYI, my interest was entirely accademic. I've no need of any changes to my diet as I'm not overweight and have a very heathy diet according to just about every well accepted standard of such.

I merely was curious about the provenance of what appeared to be an unsupported assertion that ran contrary to the most well respected studies I've seen on the issue.

Here's a clue: don't take criticism of your writing so personally. Doing such just makes you look like an asshat.

[ Parent ]

well, I apologize (none / 0) (#52)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 08:18:17 PM EST

But I was doing my best to keep my tone from being condescending. Glad I didn't pat myself on the back for doing a great job just yet...

I'll admit I was having a bad night when I posted that short message with the Medline link. In the future, I'll wait until I'm in a better temper to post.

Incidentally, I'd like to see the studies you mentioned that run contrary to my unsupported assertion that CKDers typically adhere better to the diet than other diets. For all I know, I'm completely wrong - and if so, I'd certainly like to see why.

/cscope, trying to take things less personally

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

Look for Consumer Reports June 2002 (none / 0) (#55)
by Anonymous 242 on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 08:56:16 PM EST

Consumer's Union cover story for June 2002 was a massive survey of over 32,000 that tried to lose weight and details what worked and what didn't work and what people gave up on.

[ Parent ]
+1 FP (2.63 / 11) (#4)
by tofubar on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 05:44:20 PM EST

Because it will give me opportunity to bash fat people.

Now I'm no nutritionist, but this thing sounds (4.00 / 7) (#10)
by la princesa on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 11:47:07 PM EST

like a colossally silly way to 'lose weight'.  A balanced regular diet is the best way to keep one's weight at healthful levels.  Dieting at all should only be entered into if one is grossly obese, and the majority of people who'd seize on this have less than 100 pounds to lose and are probably best off with a subway-style diet, where they simply eat better for the remainder of their lives.  

If one doesn't eat half a pound cake in a sitting, one can eat all sorts of fatty and sugary things as part of a balanced and normal diet.  Get people more into that than some temp diet where they cycle in and out of something that is only supposed to happen when you've horribly screwed up your body.  

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?

I don't agree. (3.33 / 3) (#12)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 12:46:20 AM EST

and the majority of people who'd seize on this have less than 100 pounds to lose and are probably best off with a subway-style diet, where they simply eat better for the remainder of their lives.  

So we should only diet if we have more than 100 pounds to loose? Okay, you probably weren't trying to imply that, but I just don't see how you can make assertions about what sort of people are going to be reading this. I don't think you know any better than I do. Maybe some of them are morbidly obese, and maybe some of them would just like to loose a spare tire so they can see their abs again - it's immaterial to the reason I wrote the article.

You have to understand, I'm not saying that everyone ought to try a CKD. I expressly stated, in fact, that it was "not for everyone" and that furthermore people should read and research diets for themselves. All I did was try to inform and maybe provide some people with a bit of information on a method of reducing excess bodyfat that they might find easIER than simply starving themselves. That's all.

Also....just trying telling most folks, "Go, and eat better for the remainder of your life,". They'll laugh and reach for the Oreos.

Get people more into that than some temp diet where they cycle in and out of something that is only supposed to happen when you've horribly screwed up your body.  

What makes you think ketosis is something that only happens when you've horribly screwed up your body? Ketone bodies are just an alternate fuel source.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

They can laugh and reach for the Oreos, (3.25 / 4) (#18)
by la princesa on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 05:07:23 AM EST

they just need to learn not to eat twenty of them in a sitting.  If the weight problem is a function of poor eating choices, it stands to reason that changing one's lifetime eating habits to a balanced diet containing a variety of foods is better than temporary fixes.  

Under 100 pounds overweight, one can get the weight down to a healthy level through that very method.  It doesn't involve taking out the choco cake and the potato chips.  It just means not eating the damned things exclusively.  I don't see how asking people to have some variety in their diet is so much worse than a fairly unsafe dieting method.

Now I'll not lie-- vegetable proteins definitely are good things to eat in most of one's daily meals.  However, one can have a high protein diet without letting carbs fall by the wayside.  And in the long run, a mixed diet is best overall.  One has more energy, more stamina, and while the weight may take its sweet time coming off, it will stay gone.  Or become muscle, if one is also exercising along with the life-diet change.  

Most people's bodies aren't too broken to work right with the right fuels.  Cherry-picking one type of fuel just perpetuates the short-term cycles that lead to people not losing weight because their bodies are convinced they're starving.  

If anyone's sustained a weight loss of even 20 pounds over ten years using this diet, I'd be pretty surprised.  

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?
[ Parent ]

didn't I say (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 12:23:46 PM EST

Moderation in all things, including moderation.

In case it wasn't clear, what I meant by that - and a few other sentences I threw in about "finding what works for you" and "doing your own research" was that the CKD is not for everyone and, in fact, a more balanced, long-term approach to diet and exercise would probably provide better, more sustainable results in the long term.

I love how people can read the article and the only thing that they really notice is the parts that talk about eating > 100g of carbs / day.

I don't see how asking people to have some variety in their diet is so much worse than a fairly unsafe dieting method.

Please link me the studies that prove ketosis is "fairly unsafe".

Now I'll not lie-- vegetable proteins definitely are good things to eat in most of one's daily meals.

I don't disagree. However, for individuals looking to build muscle or maintain / gain strength, vegetable proteins alone will not do it. First of all, they'd have to eat an almost obscene amount of vegetables to meet daily protein requirements, and secondly, vegetable proteins do have all the amino acids found in animal proteins.  

the weight may take its sweet time coming off, it will stay gone.

Again, this sounds familiar....I think I said this in the article.

Most people's bodies aren't too broken to work right with the right fuels.  Cherry-picking one type of fuel just perpetuates the short-term cycles that lead to people not losing weight because their bodies are convinced they're starving.

I think you've misunderstood the ketogenic diet. You can be in ketosis without having convinced your body it is starving. You could, in fact, be hypercaloric and get quite fat in ketosis, if you so desired.

A low enough calorie level is what will convince your body it is starving - on ANY macronutrient mix. The CKD is a low-carb diet, not low-cal, although it can be low-cal as well.

It is true that your body will hold on to fat more readily if you drop calorie levels too suddenly or too sharply which is why I used the (very conservative) 14 x BW and 11 x BW numbers to encourage folks to drop their caloric intakes gradually.

If anyone's sustained a weight loss of even 20 pounds over ten years using this diet, I'd be pretty surprised.  

I'll be honest - most people who use this diet actually end up gaining weight in the long run. Why is this? Because they're gaining lean body mass, not fat weight, and they realize that for a diet to be successful, you have to break it and eat at maintenance (or above) every few months to reset leptin and other hormones.

In other words, people often use this diet to remove excess fat from their bodies after they've spent months adding muscle (and the bit of fat that has to come with muscle) to their bodies. Result: they end up with a higher total bodyweight but a lower total percentage body fat. Again, bodyweight by itself is meaningless. Body comp. is what's important.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

sounds like... (none / 0) (#45)
by mikelist on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 04:49:37 PM EST

...you are describing maintenance, which is what you do after you reach a reasonably determined target weight. Ideally, one should trend back to their optimal weight, just as in many/most cases, they did in their enlargement, but you know that most people want immediate results which can only come from relatively drastic reduction in food intake, no matter what the nutritional breakdown is. The more informed you are, the more you can assess the risks and decide how you want to handle weight loss.

[ Parent ]
I don't mean to be harsh but, (2.68 / 16) (#11)
by You Are The Chosen One on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 11:47:15 PM EST

people who are fatty are not suffering from lack of dieting information. Let's face the truth straight on. A person's DNA will not cause them to become piggy. The only disease fatty people suffer is the lack of mental discipline disease.

Meaning, piggy people must not eat high caloric foods. Fatty people must drink water, and only water. Moreover, piggy people must excercise their fatty each and every day for long durations of time.

There's no excuse in this modern world for big wads of piggy gathering on educated persons bodies. The will is out there. You must seize it on your own however.

your mental flab is showing (4.40 / 5) (#13)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 02:21:10 AM EST

it does everyone some good to TALK about dieting

and that observation trumps all of yours

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Caution (4.33 / 6) (#19)
by synaesthesia on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 05:40:45 AM EST

Fatty people must drink water, and only water.

For a moment I thought You meant that larger individuals should cut out food altogether. Then I realised that he was simply recommending avoiding sodapopcoke. Excellent advice indeed.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

healthy low carb diet sham (2.41 / 12) (#15)
by mideast on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 03:40:22 AM EST

The best way to healthily lose weight is to go on a vegan diet, not this high-protein diet nonsense. Eating animal products promotes animal suffering and subjugation and is bad for your health. Meat is also often full of contaminants and toxins. Check out this site for more info.

Vegetables (3.00 / 4) (#29)
by Julian Morrison on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 11:56:13 AM EST

...are what food eats.

This message brought to you by a member of the human species, which have been natural predator-omnivores since prehistory.

[ Parent ]

agreed, sort of (4.00 / 1) (#33)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 12:09:39 PM EST

I don't think an all-veggie diet is any more healthy than an all-meat diet.

Again, moderation in all things, including moderation.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

Correction (none / 0) (#58)
by John Vance on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 09:58:00 PM EST

This message brought to you by a member of the hominid line, which have been natural prey for most of prehistory.

[ Parent ]
actually (none / 0) (#62)
by auraslip on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 11:52:00 PM EST

despite what noble idea you hold in your head of humans working together as a tribe to hunt their big meal
we were more like scavengers who picked up meat when we got it

There may have been weeks or even months in between eating meat

Meat was no way a "staple" for nutrition as it is now.

at least thats why I'm a vegitarian(vegans suck)
___-___
[ Parent ]

Wha (none / 0) (#92)
by Politburo on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 06:18:18 PM EST

While there is certainly some water to the claim that prehistoric humans were not bloodthirsty omnivores, as the meat companies would like us to believe, it still fails to rationalize your statement "that's why I'm a [vegetarian]". You basically say "Yes, prehistoric humans ate some meat. But not every day. That's why I'm a vegetarian." Either that, or you are like too many of the self-labelled vegetarians around: vegetarian only when it pleases them, but still vegetarian enough to not feel guilty using the label or to fool themselves into thinking that they are living more healthy.

[ Parent ]
well (none / 0) (#94)
by auraslip on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 08:54:12 PM EST

I probally shouldn't of said I was a vegitarian. not only do I lose credibility my "Reason" isn't that good.

Truthfully, I believe eating meat once or twice a week would probally be for the best as far as health. (allthough I'm debating whether eating hormone and pesticide meat would hurt me more in the long run, there is no real way to tell)

The real reason I am a vegitarian is that unnessacary killing should be avoided, and eating meat is not at all nessacary to my survial.
___-___
[ Parent ]

vegan = hospital visit (2.33 / 3) (#37)
by Rhodes on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 01:49:24 PM EST

Militant vegans suck. As others have pointed out, "organic farms" still crush voles and small rodents into the grain when the grain is being harvested.

[ Parent ]
uh... (2.00 / 1) (#47)
by ChannelX on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 06:14:36 PM EST

what exactly does crushing small rodents into grain have to do with its organic certification?

[ Parent ]
Well (2.50 / 2) (#91)
by Politburo on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 06:12:50 PM EST

It doesn't. Vegans or vegetarians eat "organic" because it makes them feel better. They aren't killing helpless animals! The grandparent is pointing out the irony that "organic" materials can still have animals in them.

[ Parent ]
Toxins=BS. (4.60 / 5) (#66)
by brain in a jar on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 03:42:55 AM EST

Sorry, but the idea that "meat is full of toxins, but vegetables are pure" which veggies and vegans are always pushing is rubbish. As an environmental studies major I can tell you that essentially all foods contain some contaminants. Meat and dairy will contain some traces of hydrophobic toxins like PCB's (polychlorinatedbiphenyls) whereas vegetables are likely to contain traces of pesticides/herbicides (if they are non-organic) and even if they are organic they may well contain some level of heavy metals e.g. lead, cadmium from the soil.

There is no such thing as totally "toxic free" food, if you use a sensitive enough measuring device you always find toxins. The line about vegetarian diets being somehow pure is nonsense. If they have health benefits, it is because they are low in fat, low in saturated fat and high in vitamins and minerals. These benefits are balanced by downsides, such as poorer supply of iron, and protein.

You have chosen to be a vegan, this is your personal decision. Do not try and shove it down our throats with innacurate propaganda.


Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

Thanks for this. (4.00 / 6) (#16)
by HermanMcGuigan on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 04:17:46 AM EST

What about kidney damage, then? What about cancer, cholesterol and cardiac arrest?

Well, what about them? If you're worried about what a ketogenic diet might do to your long-term health, remember that nobody says you have to stay on a CKD for the rest of your life. If you are currently overweight and need to drop a considerable amount of weight, give it a try and see if you like the results. If it works for you, use it to get down to your target weight and bodyfat % level, then implement a more long-term, balanced diet and exercise plan to maintain those levels. The diet that is going to work in the long term is the one that you can adhere to in the long term. Remember: moderation in all things, including moderation.

Emphasis added by me. I'm glad that you have the guts to admit that while low-carb diets might help people shed weight, they aren't neccessarily healthy. Most low-carb diet adherents vehemently deny that their chosen diets are anything but the healthiest diet plans in the history of the world. So congratulations on that, and this entire article, which explained the reasoning behind ketogenic diets quite well, and doesn't try and force low-carb diet rhetoric down the reader's throat, like some on this site have done in their over-zealous comments on the last low-carb diet story.

If low-carb dietiers can't lose weight any other way, and low-carb diets work for them, great, but I'm not convinced that there are no veggie-rich diets that will not produce better (from both a weight-loss and health perspective) results.



according to you (none / 0) (#26)
by crazycanuck on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 10:16:45 AM EST

the eskimos should not exist...

where are the carbs in their diet?

[ Parent ]

silly (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by HermanMcGuigan on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 10:31:43 AM EST

(according to you) the eskimos should not exist...

Please provide a reference to where I said existing without carbs is impossible.



[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced, either.... (none / 0) (#32)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 12:07:54 PM EST

...which is part of the reason I would never do a CKD long term. For one, I wouldn't be able to stand it, even with refeeds....it just gets old after a year or so, and you need a break.

For two, even with 100g of carbs (and I infrequently eat at that level, usually I'm closer to 10g) it's fewer veggies than I know is good for me.

Definitely not a long-term thing.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

What works for me. (2.50 / 2) (#17)
by Mr Hogan on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 04:18:31 AM EST

Flax seeds and bee pollen (250 mg capsules) Flinstones and ephedrine (500 mg) speedballs for breakfast lunch and dinner all the distilled water you can drink - OK that always fills my clothing just right. But it's not as easy as I make it sound - you can't be a tourist - you have to stick with the plan day in day out blow your cash and mind commit a crime go to prison and there pump iron every day for 18 months. Best thing is mom visits often brings oranges - yummy no tummy.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.

Words. All words. (nt) (3.00 / 2) (#21)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 06:05:04 AM EST



---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
The Liver Cleansing Diet: Lord of the Diets (4.16 / 6) (#20)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 05:46:27 AM EST

Three Diets for the Tabloid kings under the sky,
Seven for the Teenagers in their halls of pressure,
Nine for Obese Men doomed to die,
One for the Talk-show Host on her dark throne
In the Land of Harpo where Celebrities lie.
One Diet to rule them all, One Diet to find them,
One Diet to bring them all and in the fatness bind them
In the Land of Weight-loss Programs where the Shadows lie.

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú


---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה

what are we a bunch of overweight readers? (3.40 / 5) (#24)
by xutopia on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 09:30:00 AM EST

Diets suck!!!  All of them!  The only way to be fit is to excercize.  There are no quick fix, cheat the system diets despite what people want you to believe (so you buy their book/food/nutrients).

We get enough junk mail about diets, penis and breast enlargement that K5 should abstain from doing it too.

yeah, all I really want (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 12:01:53 PM EST

...is your credit card number.

Buy my book.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

Huff. (none / 0) (#25)
by Spencer Perceval on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 09:45:29 AM EST

My non-diet diet is far superior.

Puff.


All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

Priorities (2.27 / 11) (#27)
by Big Dogs Cock on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 10:17:32 AM EST

In the last week, we've seen two stories about overweight westerners trying to lose weight both of which hit the front page. We've had one story about people starving to death in Africa which barely made section.

Conclusion: K5ers are a bunch of narcisitic arseholes who don't give a fuck about the rest of the world.
People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
yeah, you're right (5.00 / 4) (#31)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 12:04:05 PM EST

That's why I wrote an article sharing some knowledge I happen to have accumulated over the years about a fat-reduction method that I think is both easIER and healthier than traditional starvation.

It's because (surprise) I hate you all.


-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

Gah! (3.66 / 3) (#36)
by jabber on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 01:45:13 PM EST

When one needs a refresher course in Organic Chemistry, there is a problem.

The into to The Hacker's Diet makes the point real clear. To lose weight, eat less than your body uses.

There's no "One True Diet", and being "on a diet" is a short term state for psychological reasons. Proper nutrition, like proper financial management, require a continually refined lifestyle.

Betting on a complex pattern built around the metabolism of a particular whatever is as sane as putting all your money into Microsoft stock. It might work perfectly for some, but to a significantly lesser degree for most.

To lose weight, gain weight, maintain metabolic balance and so on, you have to understand your tolerance for sugar, carbs, protein, etc., just as to build a nest egg you have to understand the theory of interest, your tolerance for risk, inflation and the relationship between them.

Unlike brace styles, and text editing, there isn't a diet that works for everyone. Vi rules!

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

GAH (4.00 / 2) (#39)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 02:03:02 PM EST

I never CLAIMED this was the one true diet. Read the last bit of the article again.  

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]
GAH!!! (none / 0) (#63)
by jabber on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 12:12:59 AM EST

I never aimed the comment at you or your article specifically. It's a solid article. It's just all those people doing damage to themselves in their quest for a silver bullet. I've had so many people I know and care about buy into this diet or that one, only to end up no better off at best, or heavier and more depressed typically... Any diet that is presented with confidence and authority, tends to come across convincingly - especially for people at the end of their rope - and that vulnerability of theirs, that desperate to "try anything", just makes me bristle.

Nothing personal.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

insert foot in mouth (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by collideiscope on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 01:06:26 AM EST

Sorry.....I guess I'm overly defensive. I do agree that there is a danger of people latching onto diets without fully understanding what would work for their particular situation, to no good end, and I did try to make a point of telling people to explore all their options.

Thanks for your comments, sorry I jumped on you.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

Hey, no sweat. (none / 0) (#86)
by jabber on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 01:04:21 PM EST

I tend to be overly critical in how I come across, and so my comments need to be salted liberaly. Jumping is good exercise. ;)

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

The Hackers Diet is overrated (4.50 / 2) (#89)
by lamontg on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 03:34:20 PM EST

The Hackers Diet is very oversimplified and contains at least one notable error.

The biggest outright error that it makes is that the author ignores the effect of increased metabolism due to excersize on weight loss. The beneficial effects of excersize on weight loss are not simply in the calories that you burn while you are excersizing, but also in the calories that you continue to burn afterwards.

The author also ignores a growing body of research on how different foods affect insulin and hunger and the way that this entirely scientific information can be used as a tool to reduce calorie consumption. We know, for example, that whole grains are absorbed slower into the body than processed white flour. This has beneficial effects in keeping food in your stomach longer and lengthening feelings of satiety. It also means that the whole grains are digested slower and thier carbs are broken down into sugars more slowly and deposited more slowly into the blood stream. This produces less of a spike in glucose, and produces less insulin release.

There are several beneficial effects of controlling insulin release. One of which is that if you spike blood sugar and release a lot of insulin into your blood stream the insulin will process too much of the blood glucose and lead to a glucose crash -- with low energy and hunger, which can easily lead to overeating. Excessive insulin release will also lead, over time, to the pancreas "tiring out" and lead to insulin resistance or type II diabetes.

Studies have also been done which suggest that insulin receptors on adipocytes (fat cells) are important in the storage of fat. There is an emerging body of research that it isn't just how many calories that you eat, or what your metabolic rate is, but also how good your body is at storing fat. The premise of The Hackers Diet may, simply be wrong, and that it may be possible to tweak how much fat that you store by reducing the level and spikiness of insulin in your bloodstream.

The problem with the Hackers Diet is that there are more dimensions to how our food affects us than just how many calories that food has. If most people attempted to diet by eating nothing but mashed potatoes they would probably fail to restrict their calorie consumption due to the quick clearance of the potatoes and the insulin and blood glucose crash that occurs soon after eating them. They would continue to overeat and due to the high levels of glucose and insulin would continue to gain weight. It is always possible that a particularly motivated individual might be able to control their calorie consumption and lose weight and keep it off this way, but most people are going to give in to the way that our bodies are actually designed and to basic Physiology 101.

I also don't think any of this information is particularly revolutionary in terms of what it suggests that you do for your diet. A diet that tries to control glucose and insulin and reduce calories is simply one where you eat lots of green leafy veggies, eat less sweat fruits (apples are good), eat lean meats, drink milk, eat whole wheat breads and pastas, stay away from soda, white bread, potatoes and anything sweetened with high fructose corn syrup (which you will note is a surprising amount of fare on US supermarket shelves if you start reading the labels). There is nothing particularly radical about this dietary advice, but it does explain better why you need to understand it.

This diet also explains why Americans are so much fatter than anyone else historically or than most people in the world right now. The increase in our consumption of white flours and in processed sugars is a relatively new invention. And it is only in American right now that nearly every product on our supermarket shelves has been sweetend with high fructose corn syrup. If you got to Europe or anywhere else you will not find the level of consumption of sweetened foods that you do in the US. I firmly believe that this is what is behind the rise in incidence of obesity and diebetes in the US because it is the only explanation which is self-consistant and examines the historical changes in our diet. I found it particularly striking to go to spain and see a lot of very thin people, who don't particularly excersize a lot (with the climate being so hot they don't move too fast) and who eat a diet which is not particularly low-fat. They don't seem much different from americans, with the exception that they eat much less processed foods with fewer sweeteners. I hope that soon there will be better scientific studies done which will either confirm or refute this theory.

So the claim that the author of the title piece here needs a "referesher course in Organic Chemistry" kind of blows me away, as does the recommenation of "The Hackers Diet." I think the author of The Hackers Diet has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of a large number of slahdot and kuro5hin readers by having a compelling philosophy and prose style. I really don't think there's any substance behind what that author has written. I will agree with the philosophy though -- I am, in fact, trying very hard to "hack" my diet and lose weight. I have, however, found that it is critical for me to understand how what my food does to glucose and insulin in order for me to lose weight. I also don't believe that this advice would be bad for anyone else, and even if it isn't responsible for them losing weight, it will have beneficial effects on reducing the risk of heart disease and diabetes in the future. The only people I don't think it will help are those people who can eat whatever they want to and not gain any weight. In which case they don't need to be dieting...

The one issue that I will take up with the original article in this thread is that he's still suggesting carb restriction and that he acknowledges that this might not be healthy. The healthy alternative to the diet he proposes is one which is high carb but which is low fat, low glycemic and low insulin. I actually find that what works best for me is to vary my diet while keeping the low glycemic and low insulin properties. So some weeks I'll be doing high carb, some weeks I'll practically be eating an atkins diet. This gives me the most variety while still keeping the weight off.

Also, here's a challenge: try to find an obese person in the US who doesn't eat a high glucose, high insulin diet. They'll all complain that they're "genetically fat" but they'll still drink a lot of soda or have that slice of cake or bowl of ice cream every night.



[ Parent ]

Whoa... Hold your horses and reread my comment. (4.50 / 2) (#97)
by jabber on Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 10:22:01 AM EST

I didn't "endorse" the Hacker's Diet. The very idea of that diet is tongue in cheek at best, and harmful trolling at worst. All I endorse is the initial, common-sense statement that "to lose weight one must take in less than one uses up". That's all. The "devil in the details" behind that statement, being individualized and variable over time, is the main point of my comment.

To elaborate, the crux of my comment is that "there are no silver bullets". The Hacker's Diet, Atkins, the diet outlined in the parent article, strict vegetarianism, the watermelon and pickled pig's feet diet, any diet at all, can work for someone who's metabolism would be favored by that specific diet. How well any given diet works for any given person is a concern, as people with different life styles and metabolic needs tend to latch on to what appears to be successful. They often do this without considering the degree of similarity between themselves and the "atypical success stories" attached to that diet. Whether a diet is healthy or not is a completely separate issue.

What you say about the widespread diet-influenced tendency of Americans to be overweight is dead-on solid, I think. I completely agree. Personally, being heavy has never been an issue for me. I've got a cranked-up metabolism and I naturally dislike breads, pasta, sweets and other things typically discouraged by most diets and nutritionists. I tend toward protein, whole grains and raw vegetables, in that order. So, I suspect I'm closest by natural preference to the core of Atkins, but with enough variety to keep the kidneys and digestive system in general from suffering the consequences too badly.

And I didn't suggest that the author needed the refresher in OChem, rather that the reader might, given the terminology and level at which the concepts in the above piece are explored. It was a half-facetious comment, because in my experience, most people who latch onto the "latest and greatest diet" haven't the slightest clue of the biology and chemistry involved in their own nutrition.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Ketosis is not for weight trainers (4.00 / 3) (#38)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 01:59:40 PM EST

Weight training might increase the effectiveness of ketogenic diets, but ketogenic diets will reduce the effectiveness of weight training.

A little basic biology: you use fats and carbs for energy. Fat can give you long sustained energy, but only carbs give you quick powerful bursts of energy. When you lift weights your body is relying exclusively on glycogen. A diet which reduces your glycogen will reduce your ability to lift weights.

A ketogenic diet would actually work better with aerobics.

Anyway, don't do crazy diets. Use common sense diets combined with exercise. Exercise becomes enjoyable after a while, so you're more likely to stay with it for life.

Running is a good way to reduce your bodyfat. A stocky man who is prone to shin splints (like me) can reduce his fat levels quite a bit with a weight lifting program which emphasizes squats and deadlifts.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

which is why (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 02:06:30 PM EST

Weight training might increase the effectiveness of ketogenic diets, but ketogenic diets will reduce the effectiveness of weight training.

Most PLers/BBers I know only use a CKD or similar diet when they're cutting.

When you lift weights your body is relying exclusively on glycogen. A diet which reduces your glycogen will reduce your ability to lift weights.

I know this. This is why weight training is a pain when you're deep in ketosis. Guess what? A lot of us still survive, in ketosis, doing weight training. No pain, no gain, or something like that.

The point you bring up is, incidentally, the reason behind the Targeted Ketogenic Diet, which provides carbs at and around the workouts.

A ketogenic diet would actually work better with aerobics

If by aerobis you're trying to imply something like fartlek, then yes, you're right.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

I beg to differ (4.50 / 2) (#41)
by Tom Bombadil on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 02:10:03 PM EST

CKDs work very, very well for "weight lifting". It has served me very well over the past 6 years I have used it (on and off). After time your body adapts and your strength levels go back up. You will be very strong indeed on the Monday workout after the weekend loading. I average about 4-5 pounds of water retention on Monday and that allows me to push some good weight. I used to compete in bodybuilding at the national level (NPC) and for me, nothing even came close to the CKD for fat loss effectiveness and muscle retention. I have used Dan Duchaine's original BodyOpus diet and then Lyle McDonald's modified CKD with great success. If you have the disciple to follow the CKD I highly recommend it.

[ Parent ]
reply (4.00 / 1) (#50)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 07:19:18 PM EST

CKD's might be good for your purposes, but probably aren't good for most lifters who are overweight. If you are overweight adding muscle will help you lose fat (and keep it off) more effectively than dieting. Therefore you should build up lots of muscle mass before using a diet that will impede your growth.

If you aren't really trying to get bigger and stronger any more then CKD's might work. This approach would probably be only important to serious bodybuilders though.

I don't think you can adapt 100%. This is why you would get a better lift after loading.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

why not? (4.00 / 1) (#79)
by collideiscope on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 11:56:18 AM EST

but probably aren't good for most lifters who are overweight

Why not? A CKD allows one to maintain lean muscle mass (of which serious lifters have quite a bit) while cutting fat drastically. What about it is not good for serious lifters who are overfat?

If you are overweight adding muscle will help you lose fat (and keep it off) more effectively than dieting.

I don't think there's any evidence that supports the claim that muscle metabolism alone is more effective than cutting calories. Muscle does help with fat burning, as a pound of muscle is 25% more effective at burning calories than a pound of fat. But I don't care if you're the Hulk, you're not going to have enough muscle on your frame to completely ignore calorie intake and dieting.

Sure, once you get the muscle, it will help maintain an upregulated metabolism in the long-term - which will indirectly make it harder to regain that fat you lost - but trying to pack on muscle so you the muscle can do the work of getting rid of your fat is like getting up in the morning, deciding you want an omlette for breakfast and going out and buying a chicken.

In other words, there's a faster and easier way to do it.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

I lost some weight. (4.00 / 2) (#44)
by falloutboy on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 03:05:10 PM EST

Up until I went to college, I was generally a bit overweight. I'm just a shade over 5'11" and, for a long time, weighed between 175 and 190. When I went away to school, I found myself adapting to a new routine that involved walking to and from classes, up to a mile from my room each way.

Lots of people gain the "freshman 15," but I actually dropped a couple of pounds that year.

The following year, I started eating a lot more vegetables and a lot less sugar and meat. Cutting out soda alone from my diet helped enormously. There's something like 60 grams of sugar in a 20 oz bottle of Coke. By the way, those 20 oz bottles are actually 2.5 servings.

So I switched from burgers to salad and soda to water, and tried to eat a lot more fish. Unfortunately, the fish in the campus dining halls smells like it was backpacked in from the other side of North America, so that would have to wait until I moved into my own apartment off campus.

I gradually lost weight and generally felt better, but it wasn't until summer of last year that I lost the last 15 pounds or so. I went to London, which is a city that deserves to be walked. I ended up just eating less and walking a lot more. By the end of the summer, girls were calling me "skinny," which is quite a thrill for me. =) I weighed about 150 when I came back from London.

Here's a photo of me at graduation about three months ago. I weigh 165 in that photo, and I'm at about 160 as of this morning.

I can see that I'm in a position right now to take steps to make sure I'm healthy for the rest of my life, so I'm buying a mountain bike. I'd like to reduce the amount of body fat I have, and it seems aerobic exercise is just about the best way to do it, if not necessarily the easiest.

So thats my story. I lost weight by eating healthy and walking a lot, like that guy Jared from the Subway commercials. Jared, I salute you, sir.

My job all summer has been largely sitting in front of a computer, being inactive. A couple of tricks I use to make sure I get at least a minimum of movement each day is that I intentionally park my car farther from the building I work in and I virtually always take the stairs.

Are you nuts? (none / 0) (#53)
by BOredAtWork on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 08:51:09 PM EST

You're over 5'11", and weigh 160? Man, I'm 5'9", weigh 195, and God willing I'll break 200 before Christmas. Eat a good ribeye, and lift some weights, man! It's much more fun in life to knock down 4000 calories a day, as long as you use 'em to build muscle mass!

Besides, if you balance the lifting with some time in the pool, or on an elliptical trainer, you'll 1) Meet toned, partially undressed women, and 2) Be able to drink a few pints of Guinness each week without any noticable increase in body fat percentage!

You're definately missing out by jumping on the "gotta be light" bandwagon.

[ Parent ]

I'm not too psyched about weighlifting (none / 0) (#56)
by falloutboy on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 09:01:50 PM EST

I'm not sure that weightlifting is my style, but I've actually been thinking a lot about going swimming regularly. It seems to me that there is no better aerobic exercise to lose body fat and gain lean muscle and tone the body.

I'm not so much in the "gotta be light" mindset as I'm interested in having low bodyfat, being in good shape and having lots of stamina, and of course, looking good naked. =)

But, just out of curiosity, what is your exercise routine?

[ Parent ]

better exercises for loosing fat (4.00 / 1) (#60)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 10:04:13 PM EST

Check out fartlek. It's basically interval training, and based on Tremblay's 1994 study of interval work, you will lose more fat doing fartlek than doing longer periods of lower-intensity cardio.

As far as gaining lean muscle, stick to weights. You'll grow much faster than if you just swim. And as far as "toning" the body...well, the body "tone" you see on others is just a functional combination of muscle + low body fat. You're not going to grow "longer, leaner muscles" by doing Pilates or anything.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]
Swimming (none / 0) (#61)
by drc500free on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 10:48:16 PM EST

Swimming is a great way to get a good, lean body. You're not going to put on mass, and you're not going to get ripped and buldging. But if you swim for an hour every day or so, you will get good strong, aesthetic muscles that you can only get from endurance training. That being said, the best possible combination is swimming combined with weight lifting. The lifting adds more bulk, while the swimming keeps your muscles balanced and defined. There's a smoothness and flow to your muscles that you get from swimming that you can't get from just the gym.
Ask any of your female friends if they would prefer a swimmer's body or a weightlifter's...

[ Parent ]
what? (none / 0) (#64)
by collideiscope on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 01:02:36 AM EST

You're not going to put on mass, and you're not going to get ripped and buldging.

Well no, but that's not going to happen if you weight train, either, unless you get adequate protein.

But if you swim for an hour every day or so, you will get good strong, aesthetic muscles that you can only get from endurance training.

....or weight training.....or martial arts....or....

The lifting adds more bulk, while the swimming keeps your muscles balanced and defined. There's a smoothness and flow to your muscles that you get from swimming that you can't get from just the gym.

Ummmm. Right. Because there's something magical about swimming that "balances" and "defines" your muscles. Swimming also adds "smoothness" and "flow", naturally, because water is smooth, and water flows.

Seriously though. I know plenty of swimmers, one of whom has been swimming since he was 6 years old. He's 25 now and just got married. He has big, meaty arms and a big, meaty chest and a big, meaty belly. I'm not saying he's fat: I'm saying there is hardly any visible muscle definition to speak of. Why not? He eats too much.

Muscle definition comes from the absence of body fat, not the presence of one particular exercise.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#104)
by BOredAtWork on Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 10:26:51 PM EST

...swimming is possibly the only endurance exercise you can do which puts your body through such a full range of motion. That's what causes swimmers to be toned, really. If you go through all four strokes, you'll not only get all the cardio benefits, but the muscle definition that only comes with repeating the full range of motion for that muscle. Swimming works muscles that you didn't know you even had...

[ Parent ]
oh, how could I have forgotten (none / 0) (#110)
by collideiscope on Thu Aug 21, 2003 at 05:15:56 PM EST

the larger your range of motion, the more *toned* you become. This is why gymnasts often have such long, slim, skinny muscles, as opposed to bodybuilders, who have dense, bunchy, large muscles because all the exercises they do have such a small range of motion.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]
bah (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by truffle on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 10:57:20 PM EST

You're hot I was expecting you'd just be a skinny geek =/ I'm disappointed.

meow
[ Parent ]

Re-invention of the wheel (4.00 / 1) (#49)
by CoolName on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 07:17:06 PM EST

One eats less and works out and one looses weight. I think I have heard this one before. You should have said how much body fat you lost. You apparently lost only a modest amount of weight because you emphasized loss of body fat rather than weight was the goal of this diet. The diet also sounds like a lifestyle. I think this diet will work for a few who can go the whole ten yards but I bet the dropout rate is high as with all other diets. The dropout rate sinks most diets.

"What does your conscience say? -- 'You shall become the person you are.'" Friedrich Nietzsche


how much body fat did *I* lose? (4.50 / 2) (#51)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 08:10:38 PM EST

I think you misunderstand - this is not a diet I tried once, liked, and wrote up. It's a lifestyle, as you correctly pointed out - but it's not a long-term lifestyle.

It's something I do, off and on, during a cutting phase - most typically, the months of March - August. I use it to get rid of the excess fat I've accumulated during Sept - February, which is bulking time. So it really doesn't matter to me how many pounds of fat I lost: if all I really want to do is bring out the definition in my lower abs, and I achieve that, who cares how many pounds I lost?

The point of the article was never "Look at me, look at how much weight I lost, you can do it too," because I know how pointless that is. That approach is a crock no matter how many diets use it. The fact is, everyone's body responds in a slightly different way to nutritional changes, as everyone's dietary needs are slightly different. The CKD is a lot easier for me to adhere to than any other diet I've ever tried (including high-carb hypocaloric), but some people do better on higher carbs. It's really down to the individual, as I tried to stress again and again in this article.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

Why Atkin's works. (2.66 / 3) (#54)
by Armada on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 08:52:10 PM EST

1. It finds the real problem (carbs) 2. It's not complicated (you eat stuff without carbs, that's it. No needing to remember what to eat and when to eat it.) 3. You aren't still hungry all the time. Like one K5r once said, diet alone isn't going to help you lose weight. You have to start exercising if you don't already. Walk more often, ride a bike instead of driving, etc. The Atkin's diet plus exercise is all the average human needs. If you want to lose weight and have time to count calories and other senseless crap, then choose another plan, otherwise just stick with a simple idea: reduce carb intake and start exercising.

Atkins is no more successfull than any other diet (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Anonymous 242 on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 09:01:52 PM EST

A while ago, Consumer's Union did a massive survey of over 32,000 people that tried to lose weight. People that tried the Atkins diet were, on average, no more successfull than any other program.

The key ingredient was exercise. People that lost weight and kept it off after a year, regardless of the type of diet they were on, put into place a program of exercising at least three times per week. The second strongest strategy was simply increasing daily activity: taking the stairs instead of the elevator, walking instead of driving to the corner store, etc.

[ Parent ]

Importance of exercise (none / 0) (#105)
by dn on Fri Aug 15, 2003 at 03:32:35 AM EST

Correlation does not imply causation. It is entirely possible (IMHO likely) that people who are more serious about losing weight are more likely to exercise. I keep seeing that survey quoted, but I'd really like to see references to a controlled study, particularly a study where one group is instructed to avoid exercise.

    I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

[ Parent ]

seems an obvious troll to me (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by collideiscope on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 09:58:18 PM EST

...and anyway, if the OP isn't actually trolling, here's a legitimate reply:

carbs aren't the problem. Calories are the problem. Creating a negative energy balance, either through increased activity (aka exercise) or through reduced caloric intake, or both, will get you the weight loss you want. Maintaining your new weight is another issue.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

YHBT? IHBT! (none / 0) (#67)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 05:04:54 AM EST

You keep trolling here! You should stop this immediately because trolling is a very bad thing.

Trolling:

  • makes you look bad
  • makes you look fat
  • destroyed slashdot.org
  • encouarges people to claim that you're trolling when you trying to make a serious point
So stop your trolling! It's unhealthy.

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

Depression (3.20 / 5) (#68)
by e polytarp on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 06:17:57 AM EST

Of course, low carbohydrate diets means low levels of our favourite amino acid tryptophan, you know, the one that helps make seratonin, the one which let's you have a stable, happy brain?!



My buddies


of course.... (3.00 / 1) (#72)
by collideiscope on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 11:24:46 AM EST

which is why most folks typically feel somewhat irritable, depressed and / or anxious in ketosis while they're adapting.

Then, of course, the carb-up provides this great headrush / serotonin effect where you feel essentially stoned.

It's all just part of the fun, as far as I'm concerned.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

perhaps (4.00 / 2) (#77)
by collideiscope on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 11:41:34 AM EST

...your experience has to do with speed of adaptation? I know plenty of folks who report clearer thinking, more stable energy, etc. while in ketosis, and I've experienced it as well, but only after a minimum of a week or two feeling the ketosis blues.

Like I said, YMMV.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

Dangerous Bigot (none / 0) (#107)
by e polytarp on Sun Aug 17, 2003 at 12:00:45 PM EST

You're the one who's advocating a diet you KNOW is dangerous.



My buddies


[ Parent ]
funny {nt} (none / 0) (#109)
by collideiscope on Thu Aug 21, 2003 at 05:13:46 PM EST



-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]
Tryptophan (3.00 / 1) (#88)
by Tom Bombadil on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 03:01:47 PM EST

Why would low carbs effect tryptophan? Amino acids are components of proteins, not carbohydrates.

[ Parent ]
Digestion (none / 0) (#96)
by e polytarp on Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 03:16:00 AM EST

Carbohydrates aid digestion of tryptophan.



My buddies


[ Parent ]
Rate of weight loss (none / 0) (#71)
by SilentStrike on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 09:45:39 AM EST

I am 5'11, I weighed about 210 in the middle of May.   I am down to 187 now, which means I lost about 23 pounds in 12 weeks.  This puts me right about at that two pounds/week of weight loss that you say is not healthy or sustainable.  Honestly, I am feeling fine, and I believe I can sustain this at least until the end of August (at which the college with buffet-style dining hall might change the rate of weightloss).  

Are there any recommended studies about the rate of weight loss as correlated to sustainability?  Is it just that two pounds/week by strictly dieting and no more exercise is not sustainable?  During this period of weight loss, I started jogging a fair amount.  I think I've jogged over 40 miles in the passed two of weeks, and recently was able to outrun my sister (who has ran cross-country and track for 3 years, though she is only 14, but definetely in good shape), in a 1.5 mile run, and I plan on running more.

My eating habits have changed, but nothing drastic.  Basically, I avoid completely eating total crap (ice cream, pop corn, brownies), drink water rather than soda, and eat until I am not hungry rather than my plate is empty.  I don't feel deprived of food, like I am going to burst and eat massive quantities of food.

So long as my eating style doesn't change at college (which might be hard), I don't see why I can't continue to lose weight at around 2 pounds per week.


How can I tell if I am losing muscle mass? (none / 0) (#90)
by SilentStrike on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 03:41:03 PM EST

I don't feel noticeably weaker.  Certainly my cardiovascular health has improved.  I may have lost some muscle mass from my upper body, I was going to the gym occasionally before May (during school), and I have stopped completely.  Conversely, my legs are a lot more toned now, and I am sure my calfs have gotten bigger.

[ Parent ]
minor comments (4.00 / 1) (#100)
by collideiscope on Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 12:22:56 PM EST

Start keeping measurements of your bodyfat % (you can find some cheap electronic ones on the web)

For all practical intents and purposes, all the body comp. measurements I've seen on the web are essentially useless. Also shy away from the handheld electroimpedence devices, those are notoriously and wildly inaccurate.

The most accurate measure of bodyfat you're going to get is a dunking in some university's pool (underwater weighing), if that's not convenient for you, try the mirror - it's all I really use, because it provides enough of a measurable (visual) indication of change. Heck, take pictures if you want. Sure, you won't be able to brag on your bodyfat % number, but who cares, really, as long as you look the way you want?

If you're absolutely set on measuring bodyfat %, though, get yourself a good pair of calipers and learn to use them.

When getting 'cut', you want to use as much weight as possible, which directly translates into low reps.

In case this isn't clear; you won't get cut just by training heavy. You have to literally cut calories (thereby eliminating stored fat) after you've bulked up for a while. Lower reps + higher weights will provide mass more readily than higher reps + lower weight.

Great post, Klink....you could turn that thing into an article.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 0) (#74)
by transient0 on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 11:29:36 AM EST

it will definitely become much harder once you start to run out of fat. of course, unless you have developed an unhealthy addiction to weight loss that is where you want to stop anyway. If you are 5'11", built like an average guy and have been putting on muscle mass thanks to your exercising. You'll probably find that you hit your ideal weight around 175-180. If you have a small frame, it might be more like 165.

That said. congrats. well done.
---------
lysergically yours
[ Parent ]

why 2 lbs / week is iffy (none / 0) (#75)
by collideiscope on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 11:30:45 AM EST

I could probably dig up studies, but I'm lazy.

It's a rule of thumb related to muscle catabolism that primarily applies to people trying to hang on to muscle (powerlifters, BBers et all).

So, if you don't really care whether about maintaining strength and muscle mass, you can definitely sustain a 2lbs / week+ loss with no problem. Hell, my sister probably lost 4lbs/week when she was trying to starve herself to death, and she sustained that for a few months straight.

Running is great aerobic exercise, but in general it's catabolic as hell. If you care at all about keeping lean body mass, add some weights or at least make sure you're getting enough protein.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

quite right (4.00 / 1) (#81)
by collideiscope on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 12:15:09 PM EST

Not viewed as flaming at all, in fact, your post actually contributes several lacking points to the article.

You're right on with the meal size comment, for some reason that just completely slipped my mind while writing. Another benefit of eating 5-6 small meals per day is that it also helps regulate the insulin response, which is useful for the general populace and crucial for diabetics.

correct answer is that there is absolutely no risk (above baseline) for kidney damage or cancer. Risk of heart disease is LOWERED when correctly following a CKD

I didn't have the studies on hand myself, either, and I was so caught up in alliterating I didn't go out of my way to make any claims I couldn't back up with literature. I may go dig the studies up just for giggles though.

And, what can I say....the fructose / sucrose mix has always been a sticky point for me. Your comments actually made up for gaps in my knowledge, as I didn't realize sucrose was half fructose. If I could still edit the story I'd definitely change that, but I'll just have to hope folks read the comments....

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

just what I was looking for (none / 0) (#93)
by NickW on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 08:10:54 PM EST

This is great timing. I've been looking to lose a few more kilos of body fat, but I've found that low calory dieting it affecting my weight training and energy levels during sport.

I originally lost 20kg by cutting out the crap from my diet and a combination of weight training and running. My weight has leveled out for a few months and my attempts to lose another five has cost me muscle not fat.

Does the book by Lyle MacDonald have any information of food selection? I have no experience with low-carb diets and don't know what specific foods to eat and not eat. Any suggestions for low-carb cook books for someone who can't cook.

--
Cult - A sociotype of an auto-toxic meme-complex, composed of membots and/or memeoids.
Memetic Lexicon

Lyle's book... (none / 0) (#102)
by collideiscope on Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 01:37:17 PM EST

...doesn't spend much time on food choices. Take a look around the newsgroups, though, and you'll see what works for most folks.

Basically, it comes down to eating a lot of lean protein (chicken, tuna, sardines, some salmon / sardines, etc), eggs, etc.

There are other low carb diet tools available as well, and plenty of recipe sites.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]
cool (none / 0) (#106)
by jjayson on Fri Aug 15, 2003 at 08:25:06 PM EST

I leave for a week and one of the most interesting gets posted. In a month, or so, I will probably start trying to lose my summer poundage (yeah, I put on weight over summer from too much BBQ and stopping the gym routine). Will you be monitoring this story for new comments, and if not, is there an email address I can contact you at if I have a question or two? (My email is on my webpage.)

thanks.
--
This space for rent.

aye (none / 0) (#108)
by collideiscope on Thu Aug 21, 2003 at 05:12:25 PM EST

lonar01 at hotmail dot com

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]
While I wouldnt think this type of diet... (none / 0) (#111)
by Speaker on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 07:33:07 PM EST

...would work for everyone, I do think it has a lot going for it and is a much better alternative to Atkins. I think this type of diet would be best for a trained athlete/bodybuilder (this is just like BodyOpus I think) moreso than the rest of the population, although I think it would work for most anyone if they stuck with it. Nice post collideiscope, my only question for you would be, what type of training would you recommend, specifically on the carbing up days. This approach to training/diet is strikingly similar to simple carb loading that I have done many times beginning 6-7 days before races and hockey games where I'd restrict carbs for a few heavy training days to deplete glycogen stores, then rest for 2-4 days before the race and carb up for the game/race. I have had great results with that, so would you recommend not training on the carbing up days in the same manner?

workout timing.... (none / 0) (#112)
by collideiscope on Sat Mar 06, 2004 at 01:12:48 AM EST

Yes, I would strongly recommend that you NOT work out on carb-up days. It's a carb-UP, right? Training, or doing any sort of high-intensity aerobic activity, will interfere with glycogen storage because it will use up the gas in the tank you are trying to fill. You should be sitting on your ass and sucking down carbs.

You will get all the exercise you need during the ketogenic phase, when exercise counts towards fat loss. The whole point of a carbup is to replenish your glycogen so that your performance in glycolytic (glucose using) endeavours (weight training, running, hockey, whatever) during the FOLLOWING ketogenic period doesn't suck.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

The Cyclic Ketogenic Diet | 112 comments (109 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!