Re: does lc cause muscle loss

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
:::
::: Thanks. I think that pretty much sums it up.
:::
:::
::
:: For some of us. I suspect that the degree to which extreme carb
:: cutting is the most critical to appetite suppression *may* relate to
:: the degree to which one is insulin resistant or hyperinsulinemic.

Yeah....I think I've lost all benefit from appetite suppression. However, I
can get used to being hungry a fair amount.

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
:::
::: Thanks. I think that pretty much sums it up.
:::
:::
::
:: For some of us. I suspect that the degree to which extreme carb
:: cutting is the most critical to appetite suppression *may* relate to
:: the degree to which one is insulin resistant or hyperinsulinemic.

Yeah....I think I've lost all benefit from appetite suppression. However, I
can get used to being hungry a fair amount.

In my case, because I have to eat very low calorie, I was always hungry,
though very small meals filled me up. Now that I'm on metformin, I am
experiencing the appetite absence I've always heard about. I have to
make myself eat something now, often, when it's been too long between
meals or snacks. Also, I'm actually losing weight without trying,
though slowly.

Susan

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:27:22 -0500, Marengo <[email hidden]>
wrote:

|On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:58:10 -0500, Hannah Gruen
|<[email hidden]> wrote:
|
|Anectdotally, lots of
||people on this ng have noticed they lose better when they up the fat %
||of their diet and reduced protein a bit.
||
||HG
|
|That's how I am. I've found that the ratio of fat/protein/carbs is
|critical to my weight loss. I have to keep fat calories at more than
|70%; ideally for me it's fat 75%, protein 25%, carbs 5%. I can't ay
|why it works; maybe because of the appetite suppression of the fat?
|I guess it's a similar thing to why Dr. Atkins' "fat fast" works for
|those who are stalled in their weight loss.

Oops, I meant fat 70%, protein 25%, carbs 5%

"Susan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

:: Research also says it's fat and less carbs.

I'm not sure if I've seen this. Do you have a link handy? If not, don't
trouble.

You haven't seen research about lower carb, higher fat being more
satiating?

Maybe per calorie. With me, it ain't more sating at all per calorie. Sure, 1
oz of fat is more sating than an ounce of carbs, it's also more calories.
Carrot cake is pretty damn sating, at least for that moment, and it's packed
with calories.

Joe the Aroma wrote:
:: "Susan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: x-no-archive: yes
:::
::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::
:::::: Research also says it's fat and less carbs.
::::
:::: I'm not sure if I've seen this. Do you have a link handy? If
:::: not, don't trouble.
:::
::: You haven't seen research about lower carb, higher fat being more
::: satiating?
::
:: Maybe per calorie. With me, it ain't more sating at all per calorie.
:: Sure, 1 oz of fat is more sating than an ounce of carbs, it's also
:: more calories. Carrot cake is pretty damn sating, at least for that
:: moment, and it's packed with calories.

It's damn good, too. I stay away from it. I can do myself serious damage
with good cake.

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

It's damn good, too. I stay away from it. I can do myself serious damage
with good cake.

I haven't made it in ages, but now that I have powdered erythritol for
the cream cheese frosting and granulated for the cake (0 calorie, 0
gastric distress), and a decent LC bake mix to cut the flour with (carb
quick) I may make it.

Susan

Roger Zoul said:

Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either, since
that's easy to abuse.

Fat alone as having effect on appetite - Imagine you are required to
eat a stick of butter. 120 grams almost all fat. Not mixed with
any other food. Now imagine that there's a second stick to be
eaten as well. Some on ASDLC could and some couldn't pull off
the first stick, few would be able to pull off the second.

Fat mixed with carbs - Imagine the first stick of butter gets mixed
with flour and sugar instead of with the second stick. And the
mixture gets cooked together to form simple sugar cookies. Now
you're required to eat the batch of cookies. Easier or harder than
the two sticks of pure butter for the same total calories? Some on
ASDLC would have problems stopping once started eating the
cookies. Even mixing with carbs to the level of half-h-half light
cream and many would be able to down it all.

Quoted message said:

As you said, removing the carbs brings on ketosis, and that suppresses
appetite.

Agreed, but fat does something to the appetite when not mixed
with carbs, and whether it does mixing in carbs seems to
mask that effect.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::
::: Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either,
::: since that's easy to abuse.
::
:: Fat alone as having effect on appetite - Imagine you are required to
:: eat a stick of butter. 120 grams almost all fat. Not mixed with
:: any other food. Now imagine that there's a second stick to be
:: eaten as well. Some on ASDLC could and some couldn't pull off
:: the first stick, few would be able to pull off the second.
::
:: Fat mixed with carbs - Imagine the first stick of butter gets mixed
:: with flour and sugar instead of with the second stick. And the
:: mixture gets cooked together to form simple sugar cookies. Now
:: you're required to eat the batch of cookies. Easier or harder than
:: the two sticks of pure butter for the same total calories? Some on
:: ASDLC would have problems stopping once started eating the
:: cookies. Even mixing with carbs to the level of half-h-half light
:: cream and many would be able to down it all.

This sounds strangely like the "ick" effect to me, Doug. I frankly couldn't
eat even a little butter by itself because alone it invokes an "ick" factor
in me. Add it to something and it changes.

You know, I can think of many items that aren't fat that would induce a
similar "ick" with me. I won't bother to name any.

I can sort of see your point applied to other foods, like steak or any fatty
meat. I could do some really serious damage to a plate of sugar cookies but
would have a much harder time doing the same with steak. However, I would
claim that's due to the fast acting carbs in the cookies rather than the fat
/ protein the steak.

::
::: As you said, removing the carbs brings on ketosis, and that
::: suppresses appetite.
::
:: Agreed, but fat does something to the appetite when not mixed
:: with carbs, and whether it does mixing in carbs seems to
:: mask that effect.

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: It's damn good, too. I stay away from it. I can do myself serious
::: damage with good cake.
::
:: I haven't made it in ages, but now that I have powdered erythritol
:: for the cream cheese frosting and granulated for the cake (0
:: calorie, 0 gastric distress), and a decent LC bake mix to cut the
:: flour with (carb quick) I may make it.

Unlike more normal people, even LC cake is a problem for me. I just don't
do moderation well. I tend to live on the extremes, except where I'm
indifferent. Sad, I know.

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

Unlike more normal people, even LC cake is a problem for me. I just don't
do moderation well. I tend to live on the extremes, except where I'm
indifferent. Sad, I know.

You know yourself best. Just the sensation of sweetness can cause an
insulin response in some folks, and that may trigger cravings.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Unlike more normal people, even LC cake is a problem for me. I
::: just don't do moderation well. I tend to live on the extremes,
::: except where I'm indifferent. Sad, I know.
::
:: You know yourself best. Just the sensation of sweetness can cause an
:: insulin response in some folks, and that may trigger cravings.

Honestly, I think I just like sweet things like cake and just want to
indulge myself while no one is looking. I think what you say may be the
case for some folks, but some of us (me, in particular) are just shamefully
greedy.

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

Honestly, I think I just like sweet things like cake and just want to
indulge myself while no one is looking. I think what you say may be the
case for some folks, but some of us (me, in particular) are just shamefully
greedy.

I'll certainly take your word for it, Roger. I do tend to think that
biology, in the form of hormonal response, drives hunger/appetite in
most folks.

Susan

Roger Zoul said:

Doug Freyburger wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:

::: Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either,
::: since that's easy to abuse.

:: Imagine you are required to eat a stick of butter ...
:: Imagine the first stick of butter gets mixed
:: with flour and sugar instead ...

This sounds strangely like the "ick" effect to me, Doug. I frankly couldn't
eat even a little butter by itself because alone it invokes an "ick" factor
in me. Add it to something and it changes.

Consider - Ick factor is some sort of reduced appetite, some sort
of satiety. Not the same sort as dropping carb cravings, but
some sort nonetheless.

Quoted message said:

You know, I can think of many items that aren't fat that would induce a
similar "ick" with me. I won't bother to name any.

Similar isn't same. Years ago I wanted to try increasing my
fat-to-protein ratio so I calculated how many calories I was
having for breakfast and how much olive oil that would be.
Turned out it was between a shot glass and a jigger glass.
Can't beat 100% fat for the fat-to-protein ratio and I wasn't
going to change my other meals, so I tried having a shot of
olive oil straight as my breakfast. First day no problem.
Second day no problem. Third day I didn't look forward to it.
Fourth day I stared at it and held my nose when I gulped.
Fifth day I had to hold my nose to even sip it. Sixth day I
could not bring myself to have breakfast and ended up
having an omlette for lunch. While I don't know what sort of
appetite it reduced, it reduced something.

Quoted message said:

I can sort of see your point applied to other foods, like steak or any fatty
meat. I could do some really serious damage to a plate of sugar cookies but
would have a much harder time doing the same with steak.

Consider a 600 calorie portion of untrimmed fatty steak and a
600 calorie portion of lean sliced turkey breast. Which would
you expect to be more filling from the size? The turkey is
bigger. But when I actually try one one day and the other the
next, the steak seems more filling. The difference is small,
but if I try that with 600 calories of cookies, look out.

Quoted message said:

However, I would
claim that's due to the fast acting carbs in the cookies rather than the fat
/ protein the steak.

That's why I offer ethe example of comparing beef and turkey
both while low carbing.

To me there's a different feeling to the cravings involved. Carb
cravings seem sharp and intense. Fat cravings seem more
nebulous and weak. But get into ketosis and my carb cravings
turn off like a light switch. There's no turning off my fat cravings
when I attempt low fatting. I figure this is why Induction seems
hard but then low carbing seems easy for lots of folks who
tried low fat and couldn't stick to it.

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Honestly, I think I just like sweet things like cake and just want
::: to indulge myself while no one is looking. I think what you say
::: may be the case for some folks, but some of us (me, in particular)
::: are just shamefully greedy.
:::
:::
::
:: I'll certainly take your word for it, Roger. I do tend to think that
:: biology, in the form of hormonal response, drives hunger/appetite in
:: most folks.

I certainly think that's part of it, and for me, most of it when I was
367lbs. However, I now realize that some of it is just me and my enjoyment
of eating. I guess I could have made that more clear in what I wrote above.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Doug Freyburger wrote:
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::
:::::: Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either,
:::::: since that's easy to abuse.
:::
::::: Imagine you are required to eat a stick of butter ...
::::: Imagine the first stick of butter gets mixed
::::: with flour and sugar instead ...
:::
::: This sounds strangely like the "ick" effect to me, Doug. I frankly
::: couldn't eat even a little butter by itself because alone it
::: invokes an "ick" factor in me. Add it to something and it changes.
::
:: Consider - Ick factor is some sort of reduced appetite, some sort
:: of satiety. Not the same sort as dropping carb cravings, but
:: some sort nonetheless.
::
::: You know, I can think of many items that aren't fat that would
::: induce a similar "ick" with me. I won't bother to name any.
::
:: Similar isn't same. Years ago I wanted to try increasing my
:: fat-to-protein ratio so I calculated how many calories I was
:: having for breakfast and how much olive oil that would be.
:: Turned out it was between a shot glass and a jigger glass.
:: Can't beat 100% fat for the fat-to-protein ratio and I wasn't
:: going to change my other meals, so I tried having a shot of
:: olive oil straight as my breakfast. First day no problem.
:: Second day no problem. Third day I didn't look forward to it.
:: Fourth day I stared at it and held my nose when I gulped.
:: Fifth day I had to hold my nose to even sip it. Sixth day I
:: could not bring myself to have breakfast and ended up
:: having an omlette for lunch. While I don't know what sort of
:: appetite it reduced, it reduced something.

I'm not sure this is convincing of reduced appetite in general. Making
yourself "icked out" by drinking pure fat to the point that you didn't want
to eat breakfast by day 6, but then eating a goodly lunch, or maybe eating
more of other foods later, doesnt really imply reduced appetite. Had you
done the same on some foods you really enjoyed and tracked ad lib calorie
consumption, perhaps.

Frankly, this all seems like double talk. We say that carbs result in BG
swings with increases appetite. But they do that in the presense of fat too
(though perhaps not as badly). Remove the carbs, normalize BG, then
appetite returns to normal. Now, we add an additional thing that fat makes
us full quicker. so we get another boost to eat less if we remove carbs and
eat more fat. Next, we add LC veggies - full of fiber, so we get a third
kick because fiber-rich, high-water content veggies take up space in the
belly. Geez, with all of this going on, there should be no question of the
efficacy of LC dieting over LF. That's basically 3 to 1 in favor of LC (LF
having fiber, but high in carbs and low in fat). I would therefore expect
LC to have a much greater rate of success, if all of that really works.

::
::: I can sort of see your point applied to other foods, like steak or
::: any fatty meat. I could do some really serious damage to a plate of
::: sugar cookies but would have a much harder time doing the same with
::: steak.
::
:: Consider a 600 calorie portion of untrimmed fatty steak and a
:: 600 calorie portion of lean sliced turkey breast. Which would
:: you expect to be more filling from the size?

I honestly can't say.

The turkey is
:: bigger. But when I actually try one one day and the other the
:: next, the steak seems more filling. The difference is small,
:: but if I try that with 600 calories of cookies, look out.

I would say that I'd probably want to eat more streak since I enjoy it more
than somewhat bland turkey breast. Now, if you scale the serving size up a
lot more, perhaps to the point of overeating, then results might change.
That a lot of protein and fat.

::
::: However, I would
::: claim that's due to the fast acting carbs in the cookies rather
::: than the fat / protein the steak.
::
:: That's why I offer ethe example of comparing beef and turkey
:: both while low carbing.
::
:: To me there's a different feeling to the cravings involved. Carb
:: cravings seem sharp and intense.

See...I honestly cannot remember what a carb craving feels like. I'm not
good at remembering feelings outside of what hurts and what feels good.

Fat cravings seem more
:: nebulous and weak. But get into ketosis and my carb cravings
:: turn off like a light switch.

Well, I can crave both when I'm really wanting to eat. I do know that when
I dive in on something carby, I can find myself compelled to pig out. So I
know it's real. Wanting to eat again later on when I'm not really hungry is
probably the result of a dip in BG.

There's no turning off my fat cravings
:: when I attempt low fatting. I figure this is why Induction seems
:: hard but then low carbing seems easy for lots of folks who
:: tried low fat and couldn't stick to it.

Doug Freyburger said:

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz said:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

=>Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On
=>Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the
=>appetite suppression to make it easy to "right size" your calories.
=>I don't have a copy with me but I don't remember any permission
=>in it to use the appetite suppression effect of ketosis to make it
=>painless to starve yourself into lean loss.

Wrong, read "Calories does matter."(Subject: Do Calories Count?)

I get that you didn't even slightly understand my point.

Atkins turns down appetite and forbids overeating. Therefore
the sort of overeating discussed in that thread does not apply
to Atkins.

I can't exactly find the part about "fordibbing overeating" , but I do
know explicitly about the part where one is to:

".. eat till satisfied, not stuffed."

Atkins said this many times in his book.

It would be accurate to repeat what the man said.

Paraphrasing it into "forbidding overeating" probably doesn't do anybody
much good.

Jim

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

"Susan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
:::
::: Thanks. I think that pretty much sums it up.
:::
:::
::
:: For some of us. I suspect that the degree to which extreme carb
:: cutting is the most critical to appetite suppression *may* relate to
:: the degree to which one is insulin resistant or hyperinsulinemic.

Hi susan, i watch your posts a lot because i also am extremely insulin
resistant with pcos. we have talked before.. i am on 3 x 1000mg per day.
anyway, question i am asking is to what level did you find cutting carbs was
helpful for appetite suppression and lowering of insulin levels and
resistance? i have been following the pcos forum as you suggested. wonderful
resource. thankyou. just curious now about how many carbs a day has worked
for you. thanks

t

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah....I think I've lost all benefit from appetite suppression.
However, I can get used to being hungry a fair amount.

In my case, because I have to eat very low calorie, I was always hungry,
though very small meals filled me up. Now that I'm on metformin, I am
experiencing the appetite absence I've always heard about. I have to make
myself eat something now, often, when it's been too long between meals or
snacks. Also, I'm actually losing weight without trying, though slowly.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Jbuch said:

I can't exactly find the part about "fordibbing overeating" , but I do
know explicitly about the part where one is to:

".. eat till satisfied, not stuffed."

Atkins said this many times in his book.

It would be accurate to repeat what the man said.

Paraphrasing it into "forbidding overeating" probably doesn't do anybody
much good.

He sure didn't forbid it, but he did warn about it with a phrase about
failure to lose, something like, "you took the advice to eat as much as
you want too literally" and went on to discuss satiety vs. gluttony, IIRC.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

tt said:

Hi susan, i watch your posts a lot because i also am extremely insulin
resistant with pcos. we have talked before.. i am on 3 x 1000mg per day.
anyway, question i am asking is to what level did you find cutting carbs was
helpful for appetite suppression and lowering of insulin levels and
resistance? i have been following the pcos forum as you suggested. wonderful
resource. thankyou. just curious now about how many carbs a day has worked
for you. thanks

Hi, T, glad you found the PCOS forum helpful.

I have never had appetite suppression from low carbing til starting
metformin recently. My IR improved, but was still severe, years after
low carbing at about 50-70 net carbs per day, which is what I still aim
for. I LC to control my type 2 diabetes, not for weight loss, though
loss of 10lbs would be nice.

Susan

Jbuch said:

Doug Freyburger said:

Atkins turns down appetite and forbids overeating. Therefore
the sort of overeating discussed in that thread does not apply
to Atkins.

I can't exactly find the part about "fordibbing overeating" , but I do
know explicitly about the part where one is to:

".. eat till satisfied, not stuffed."

Which is misunderstood by vast numbers of people. So I write
the same meaning with different words in the hope that some
who failed to understand it the way Dr A phrased it will understand
it the way I phrased it. Direct quotes work sometimes, saying
the same thing using other words works sometimes.