or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Health Nutrition and Supplements › What kind of diet do you follow?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What kind of diet do you follow? - Page 3

post #31 of 183
Thread Starter 

Re: Re: Re: What kind of diet do you follow?

Quote:
Originally posted by mmpc001
Hmm, I don't remember anyone saying that a high carb/low fat diet with regular exercise didn't work and I'm happy it worked for you. That said, years of doing that didn't work anywhere near as well for me as eating low-carb does.

What I still find interesting is why people are so vitriolic about low-carb (Atkins in particular). It's not "hey, if it works for you - go for it." No, it's always "Atkin$ sucks" or "You're killing yourself" or "Low-carb sucks for anyone doing regular exercise - you'll bonk!" Why is that? First of all, it's bulls**t. Secondly, are others really soooo concerned about my well being that they just have to warn me about my "evil ways?" Or are they just pissed off (for some reason) that eating low-carb DOES work for MILLIONS of people? I don't get it.

I say, to each their own. If you don't want to eat a low-carb diet, that's fine, but I do...
I suppose part of it comes down to what you mean when you say a diet "works". Certainly many people do lose weight on the low-carb diets but maybe losing weight isn't the whole story. If you at nothing but grass you'd also lose weight but I wouldn't call that a diet that "works" because there would be many other, less desirable effects.

Low-carb causes weight loss by completely short-circuiting the body's nutrient extraction and energy production systems. It's the "something for nothing" routine that has been used to sell almost anything ever offered to one person by another since the beginning of life.

If it "works" for you then so be it. But it's perhaps not a terrible thing to remind yourself that it's doing more than causing you to lose weight and the other things it does are probably not things you'd choose to do to yourself. Ketosis isn't a natural or healthy state but if that's where you want to be, you certainly have the right.
post #32 of 183

Re: Re: Re: What kind of diet do you follow?

Quote:
Originally posted by mmpc001
Hmm, I don't remember anyone saying that a high carb/low fat diet with regular exercise didn't work and I'm happy it worked for you. That said, years of doing that didn't work anywhere near as well for me as eating low-carb does.

What I still find interesting is why people are so vitriolic about low-carb (Atkins in particular). It's not "hey, if it works for you - go for it." No, it's always "Atkin$ sucks" or "You're killing yourself" or "Low-carb sucks for anyone doing regular exercise - you'll bonk!" Why is that? First of all, it's bulls**t. Secondly, are others really soooo concerned about my well being that they just have to warn me about my "evil ways?" Or are they just pissed off (for some reason) that eating low-carb DOES work for MILLIONS of people? I don't get it.

I say, to each their own. If you don't want to eat a low-carb diet, that's fine, but I do...
>>>>

I've debated with Atkins followers and almost to a tee they come off as very cultish and brainwashed. On one hand they'd say what you did, "Whatever works for you", but then they turn around and bash lowfat diets and other ways of eating.

Likewise, they SAY whole grain carbs are healthier and that they eat that instead of refined...but as you let them talk more, it turns out they dont even eat THOSE. I mean, they hate potatoes for crying out loud, a veggie loaded in vits and mins.

I have done work getting kids out of relig cults before, years ago, and I have to tell you among many of the Atkins ppl I see the same mentaliy, mindset and way of speaking. Someone else on this forum once refrred to them as the Scientology of dieting, and I have to agree.

Plus I think the Atkins company is in it for BIG $$$$$ Also, too much lying has gone on with their company in terms of Atkins' true medical health. I really feel a medical/health/diet conspiracy going on here.
post #33 of 183

low carb vs. low fat

Quote:
Originally posted by mmpc001
I've been following the Atkins plan for about 6 months and have lost nearly 50lbs. I feel great and - while I have yet to attempt a century - my energy level has improved a lot. I have no problems with bonking, in other words, during my average 10-15 miles mtb rides. BTW, I'm 5'11" and was nearly 300lbs. when I started - now down to about 250 with more to go...

I have never been a supporter of low carb diets. Your body requires carbs to process fats and protiens essential to metabolism function. Also, as we all know, carbs and starches (sugars too) are important sources of energy and glycogen levels. I dont know what type of cycling or exercising others may do, but i know that i have to eat at least moderate carbs to ride for hours above 20mph. I also notice that most people that join the atkins cult seem to always gain the weight back (maybe im wrong? possibly.) The point is; there is no healthy or permanent cure for extra weight accept hardwork on the bike (or whatever else) and self-discipline with dietary indulgences.
post #34 of 183
Its interesting seeing how people view their food as much as what they eat...

I went through a funny change at around seventeen, started eating an awful lot of fruit, and when it came to meals, i really followed what i felt like (and by that i dont mean junk food), i cant eat just anything anymore, i have to give it a lot of thought, or i can ruin my whole day. Quantities are always big though, and my dinners must have meat or i dont feel fulfilled.

One other thing, breakfasts are important in my view, probably the most important meal cos it sets the tempo for the day.

bon appetit
post #35 of 183
I've tried a lot of different eating approaches...

You really have to learn about what is best for your own body.

I bet there is not one rider in the Tour De France doing the Atkins diet and if there is I'd like to know who. I tried it in March and lost 3 kgs really quickly, felt great...then had a BMI test and muscle mass test and found that I'd lost 3kgs of muscle and almost no fat. So I quickly stopped...

You just have to eat good healthy foods, get plenty of sleep and exercise.... the formula is so simple.

If you're getting fat, you are either eating too much, not getting enough sleep, sleeping too much or not exercising enough.

Once you find the balance that workd best for your body you are in heaven.

Stress can throw the formula out the window, but assuming you are doing it all right in the 1st place you shouldn't have any stress...



rest, eat, exercise, recover.

REER for short.....
post #36 of 183

i agree

weight loss is a very simple thing that the atkins cult is trying to complicate. they dont eat (or eat very little) carbs because they dont want the carbs to get stored as energy reserves(fat) which is what they see in the mirror in the bathroom around the waist. but for some reason they ignore the fact that the low carb foods they are consuming are usually high in fat!! you are chasing youre own tail! as i said before there is a simple solution that, yes, i am biased to because it worked for me... and it would for you too because its 1+2=3 .. not some mystery. your body requires calories to keep your heart beating your mouth moving and your feet shuffling.. as humans we get calories from food (even though kcals are found in almost everything.. i think there are like 131,000kcals in a gallon of gasoline). and one pound of body fat is equaled to 3,500cal ... so if you reduce your caloric intake by 500cal a day.... and maybe even burn another 500 a day(1hr 45min of cycling at around 18-20mph for a 190lbs person burns about 1900cal !!!!) then you will lose 2 or more pounds of fat per week.. and the exercise will tone your muscles which is the opposite of ketosis which eats your muscles. just something to think about. i expected people on this site (CYCLING forums) to better appreciate the value of comsuming proper nutrients and vitamins and protiens WHILE performing good exercise daily or a few times weekly. Most atkins advocates have either just found a few things online about it or maybe even read a book or two in support of it... why dont you try reading a basic physiology book or maybe just study how the cellular process really works - then low carbs might seem abit silly to you.
post #37 of 183

Re: i agree

Quote:
Originally posted by ride.every.day
weight loss is a very simple thing that the atkins cult is trying to complicate. they dont eat (or eat very little) carbs because they dont want the carbs to get stored as energy reserves(fat) which is what they see in the mirror in the bathroom around the waist. but for some reason they ignore the fact that the low carb foods they are consuming are usually high in fat!! you are chasing youre own tail! as i said before there is a simple solution that, yes, i am biased to because it worked for me... and it would for you too because its 1+2=3 .. not some mystery. your body requires calories to keep your heart beating your mouth moving and your feet shuffling.. as humans we get calories from food (even though kcals are found in almost everything.. i think there are like 131,000kcals in a gallon of gasoline). and one pound of body fat is equaled to 3,500cal ... so if you reduce your caloric intake by 500cal a day.... and maybe even burn another 500 a day(1hr 45min of cycling at around 18-20mph for a 190lbs person burns about 1900cal !!!!) then you will lose 2 or more pounds of fat per week.. and the exercise will tone your muscles which is the opposite of ketosis which eats your muscles. just something to think about. i expected people on this site (CYCLING forums) to better appreciate the value of comsuming proper nutrients and vitamins and protiens WHILE performing good exercise daily or a few times weekly. Most atkins advocates have either just found a few things online about it or maybe even read a book or two in support of it... why dont you try reading a basic physiology book or maybe just study how the cellular process really works - then low carbs might seem abit silly to you.
Wow - here we go again. Well, I could spend the next hour linking you to independent sites that disprove every one of your assertions about Atkins, but it's honestly not worth my time to do it AGAIN. Besides, you're so anti-low-carb anyway it wouldn't matter. We'll just have to agree to disagree. In parting, though, I'd like to suggest that instead of insulting people ("why don't you try reading a basic physiology book"), how about YOU actually read the Atkins book before you fly off and make all sorts of false, uneducated and vitriolic statments...

Now, have yourself a great day...
post #38 of 183
vitriolic? maybe. uneducated..no. i am a 2nd year med student if you wanna go there. hey, since you are so keen on the facts.. lets examine a few, shall we?
the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, agrees with the AMA and the ADA in opposing the Atkins Diet. So does the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association and the Cleveland Clinic and Johns Hopkins and the American Kidney Fund and the American College of Sports Medicine and the National Institutes of Health.
In fact there does not seem to be a single major governmental or nonprofit medical, nutrition, or science-based organization in the world that supports the Atkins Diet. As a 2004 medical journal review concluded, the Atkins Diet "runs counter to all the current evidence-based dietary recommendations."
Because of the Henry VIII-style meat load, essentially every single study on low carb diets that measured uric acid levels showed that uric acid levels rose. In virtually every instance it's been studied over the last 50 years, uric acid itself has been tied to cardiovascular disease risk, and may be an independent risk factor by increasing free radical damage or making the blood more susceptible to clotting.
When cutting calories, it's especially important to eat nutrient-dense diets, but the Atkins Diet presents a double whammy; it restricts the healthiest foods, like fruit, and unrestricts some of the unhealthiest, like meat. Shortly after Atkins' original book was published, the highly prestigious Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics concluded that the Atkins Diet was "unbalanced, unsound and unsafe." As noted in a Medical Times review, Atkins has created a "ridiculously unbalanced and unsound" "hazardous" diet. Twenty-seven years later the Medical Letter offered an update noting that the safety of the Atkins Diet had still "not been established."
Low carbohydrate diets like Atkins maximize the consumption of disease-promoting substances like the cholesterol, saturated fat, and industrial pollutants in meat, yet restrict one's intake of fiber and literally thousands of antioxidants and phytochemicals found exclusively in the plant kingdom (like the carotenoids, lycopenes, bioflavenoids, phytic acid, indoles, isothiocyanates, etc.) that have "anti-aging, anti-cancer and anti-heart disease properties." As a 2004 medical review concluded, the Atkins Diet is so "seriously deficient" in nutrition that "there is real danger of malnutrition in the long term."
Where might then one get one's vitamins on the Atkins Diet? From the Atkins website, of course, on sale now for just over $640 a year.Add some antioxidants and the tab is up to $1000. That is, of course, in addition to the estimated $400-$1400 the pricey Atkins food--meat and cheese--costs every month (unless one chooses to live off hot dogs).
The Atkins Diet restricts foods that prevent disease and encourages foods that promote disease. No matter what Atkins or other diet books tell people, the balance of evidence clearly shows that the intake of saturated animal fat is associated with increased risk of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. For over 40 years, medical reviews have also shown the detrimental impact of dietary cholesterol consumption. Even independent of the effects on obesity, meat consumption itself has been related to an increased risk of coronary heart disease.
Ketosis is also proven to be damaging to fetal brain tissue in pregnant women, Atkins acknowledged this only after his book had said the opposite, yet was it changed? no.

Well, I stand by what i said before, read something other than Atkins propaganda.. you might be suprised. I apologize for coming across too brash, you are entitled to your uneducated opinion.
Have yourself a great low-carb day!
post #39 of 183
I would like to add that it is not my intention to clutter up this forum with nasty arguments and smart-@ss comments, which i think its starting to come to. After thinking about it a few more minutes I realize that most people are very motivated by their cause regardless of the facts... and will stand by them mostly because we dont want to retract our previous notions.. it would make us look - well, foolish. so none of us are going to say "hey wow.. youre right.. i was wrong." its not what humans do best. Game over. tie. called on a'count'a rain. etc etc... low carb probably wont kill you... but as we know from the facts... its not at all healthy.
so, for real this time, have a nice day.
post #40 of 183
Quote:
Originally posted by ride.every.day
I would like to add that it is not my intention to clutter up this forum with nasty arguments and smart-@ss comments, which i think its starting to come to. After thinking about it a few more minutes I realize that most people are very motivated by their cause regardless of the facts... and will stand by them mostly because we dont want to retract our previous notions.. it would make us look - well, foolish. so none of us are going to say "hey wow.. youre right.. i was wrong." its not what humans do best. Game over. tie. called on a'count'a rain. etc etc... low carb probably wont kill you... but as we know from the facts... its not at all healthy.
so, for real this time, have a nice day.
Very well said. Both about atkins and about forum decorum!

Strong work.
post #41 of 183
Thread Starter 

Re: Re: i agree

Quote:
Originally posted by mmpc001
Wow - here we go again. Well, I could spend the next hour linking you to independent sites that disprove every one of your assertions about Atkins, but it's honestly not worth my time to do it AGAIN. Besides, you're so anti-low-carb anyway it wouldn't matter. We'll just have to agree to disagree. In parting, though, I'd like to suggest that instead of insulting people ("why don't you try reading a basic physiology book"), how about YOU actually read the Atkins book before you fly off and make all sorts of false, uneducated and vitriolic statments...

Now, have yourself a great day...
Human physiology has the last word on Atkins and that word isn't supportive of it. Your body simply wasn't designed to subsist on such a diet and if you force it, there are problems. It's your body. You do what you want to do but if you look into what your body's construction tells you about the foods it's intended to digest, you'll find Atkins is out the window.

Atkins works because the body isn't designed to make the most of that kind of diet. It effectively short-circuits the body's ability to extract the nutrients which is why the body then turns to burning fat for energy. It may be effective for weight loss but overall it's not a good thing.

Atkins books tend to be in favor of Atkins, (go figure). But if you look into man's teeth, saliva, salivary glands, skin, fingernails, digestive enzymes, digestive acids and the length, shape and routing of the digestive tract, you'll find that the Atkins books are full of misinformation.
post #42 of 183

Re: Re: Re: i agree

Quote:
Originally posted by Beastt
Atkins works because the body isn't designed to make the most of that kind of diet. It effectively short-circuits the body's ability to extract the nutrients which is why the body then turns to burning fat for energy. It may be effective for weight loss but overall it's not a good thing.
Although this is the theory that Atkins advocates push (that calories consumed are not processed - a ketonic state), I think research is suggesting that it's just that you lose your appetite if you eat all fat and protein. A high level of satiety leads to reduced calorie intake. Ketones have a minimal and neglible impact on the calories in calories out equation, which still holds true.
post #43 of 183
Thread Starter 

Re: Re: Re: Re: i agree

Quote:
Originally posted by Roadie_scum
Although this is the theory that Atkins advocates push (that calories consumed are not processed - a ketonic state), I think research is suggesting that it's just that you lose your appetite if you eat all fat and protein. A high level of satiety leads to reduced calorie intake. Ketones have a minimal and neglible impact on the calories in calories out equation, which still holds true.
Take a broad look around at what studies are showing concerning the body's ability to convert protein to energy and the efficiency of burning fat for energy as opposed to using carbohydrates. Let me know what you find.
post #44 of 183

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i agree

Quote:
Originally posted by Beastt
Take a broad look around at what studies are showing concerning the body's ability to convert protein to energy and the efficiency of burning fat for energy as opposed to using carbohydrates. Let me know what you find.
There is no metabolically available protein. However, amino acids can be converted into fats and then metabolised. I don't need to look at a study to find out what is already in every textbook.

Similarly, ketogenic processes have been recognised since at least 1863. Ketonuria does not exceed 100 calories a day except in diabetics, which is unlikely to be a significant factor in weight loss. I'm not sure why you bring up efficiency. (Burning fat for energy is as efficient as burning carbohydrate, provided some carbohydrate is metabolically available).

100 calories is unlikely to significantly effect the calories in/calories out equation. If you know of reasearch that suggests a greater ketogenic effect, I would be interested to see it.
post #45 of 183
Thread Starter 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i agree

Quote:
Originally posted by Roadie_scum
There is no metabolically available protein. However, amino acids can be converted into fats and then metabolised. I don't need to look at a study to find out what is already in every textbook.

Similarly, ketogenic processes have been recognised since at least 1863. Ketonuria does not exceed 100 calories a day except in diabetics, which is unlikely to be a significant factor in weight loss. I'm not sure why you bring up efficiency. (Burning fat for energy is as efficient as burning carbohydrate, provided some carbohydrate is metabolically available).

100 calories is unlikely to significantly effect the calories in/calories out equation. If you know of reasearch that suggests a greater ketogenic effect, I would be interested to see it.
Thank you, that's all I was looking for. Perhaps I should start mixing 10% energy gel with 90% Crisco shortening. It would certainly stretch the expensive energy gels.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Health Nutrition and Supplements › What kind of diet do you follow?