Atkins Fat Fast WORKS! Restart your weight loss.

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Sherman, Sep 5, 2005.

  1. Sherman

    Sherman Guest

    Tags:


  2. In article <[email protected]>,
    Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

    > If you've stopped losing and getting frustrated, then try the Atkins
    > Fat Fast. You should lose 5 to 7 pounds in less than a week.
    >
    > http://shop.store.yahoo.com/carbsmart/fatfast.html
    >
    >


    If you can stick with it... ;-)
    It's easier to modify it slightly, eat a nice protein breakfast, then
    only fat the rest of the day. It's easier to stay sane.
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  3. Sherman

    Sherman Guest

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:31:28 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> If you've stopped losing and getting frustrated, then try the Atkins
    >> Fat Fast. You should lose 5 to 7 pounds in less than a week.
    >>
    >> http://shop.store.yahoo.com/carbsmart/fatfast.html
    >>
    >>

    >
    >If you can stick with it... ;-)
    >It's easier to modify it slightly, eat a nice protein breakfast, then
    >only fat the rest of the day. It's easier to stay sane.


    For how long?
    If I remember right, the fat fast that was on their web site was 5
    days long - a very long 5 days.

    The joy of the 7 pound weight loss just about equaled the pain, so I
    don't have a lot of incentive to do it yet. Maybe next week.
     
  4. In article <9l7ph1d6ihv0a6q3pct4n6[email protected]>,
    Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:31:28 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>,
    > > Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> If you've stopped losing and getting frustrated, then try the Atkins
    > >> Fat Fast. You should lose 5 to 7 pounds in less than a week.
    > >>
    > >> http://shop.store.yahoo.com/carbsmart/fatfast.html
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >If you can stick with it... ;-)
    > >It's easier to modify it slightly, eat a nice protein breakfast, then
    > >only fat the rest of the day. It's easier to stay sane.

    >
    > For how long?
    > If I remember right, the fat fast that was on their web site was 5
    > days long - a very long 5 days.
    >
    > The joy of the 7 pound weight loss just about equaled the pain, so I
    > don't have a lot of incentive to do it yet. Maybe next week.
    >


    Yeah, that's the way I felt...
    This has been working for me, weight loss is about 1/2 lb. per day and
    you can keep it up MUCH longer.

    I'd be curious to see if you get the same results I do.

    Watch the calories. ;-)

    Cheers!
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  5. jbuch

    jbuch Guest

    Sherman wrote:
    > If you've stopped losing and getting frustrated, then try the Atkins
    > Fat Fast. You should lose 5 to 7 pounds in less than a week.
    >
    > http://shop.store.yahoo.com/carbsmart/fatfast.html
    >
    >


    That looks quite good, and simplifies the thinking needed to try it.

    The small turnoff point is the author saying she does this several times
    per year..... each time with some fast weight loss and a few pounds of
    rebound gain on termination.

    Any long term users..... especially those who used it to snap a plateau
    and then never or rarely had to repeat this Fat Fast?

    Jim
     
  6. Saffire

    Saffire Guest

    *** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- its appearance
    in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. ***

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]_HERE.revealed.net
    says...
    > Sherman wrote:
    > > If you've stopped losing and getting frustrated, then try the Atkins
    > > Fat Fast. You should lose 5 to 7 pounds in less than a week.
    > >
    > > http://shop.store.yahoo.com/carbsmart/fatfast.html
    > >
    > >

    >
    > That looks quite good, and simplifies the thinking needed to try it.
    >
    > The small turnoff point is the author saying she does this several times
    > per year..... each time with some fast weight loss and a few pounds of
    > rebound gain on termination.
    >
    > Any long term users..... especially those who used it to snap a plateau
    > and then never or rarely had to repeat this Fat Fast?


    I've never done a fat fast, despite losing very slowly and not at all
    for weeks on end. That said, I've been SOOO tired lately due to the
    stress of an impending move that I decided to forget counting calories
    (I still account for them, I'm just not making an effort to keep them
    low) and have gleefully added more fat -- lo and behold, my energy
    levels have improved dramatically and I am continuing to get smaller
    (not showing up on the scale yet, but that's my usual pattern -- get
    noticeably (to me) smaller, THEN the weight drop shows up on the scale a
    week or so later). My carb level is the same or less than before, so it
    must be the fat that's helping. So if you are getting wiped out too
    easily, consider upping your fat levels.

    --
    Saffire
    205/132/125
    Atkins since 6/14/03
    Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333

    *** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- its appearance
    in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. ***
     
  7. jbuch wrote:
    > Sherman wrote:
    >
    > > If you've stopped losing and getting frustrated, then try the Atkins
    > > Fat Fast. You should lose 5 to 7 pounds in less than a week.
    > > http://shop.store.yahoo.com/carbsmart/fatfast.html

    >
    > The small turnoff point is the author saying she does this several times
    > per year..... each time with some fast weight loss and a few pounds of
    > rebound gain on termination.


    In other words there's water retention involved. Water
    is not fat no matter that the scale registers both. It
    clearly is not re"gain" because fat loss programs are
    not water loss programs. This is a very important
    point because if you fuss about water retention you
    doom yourself to eternal self-imposed frustration while
    if you eventually learn the difference between fat and
    water you elevate yourself above that source of
    frustration. The article is clear about the difference
    because it mentions the net loss.

    A point on how the fat fast is described in the 1993
    edition of the Atkins book - The limit in the book is
    7 days. For someone who never got into ketosis at 20
    (under one percent of the population) it is a cycle of
    3 weeks on Induction and 1 week on fat fast.

    > Any long term users..... especially those who used it to snap a plateau
    > and then never or rarely had to repeat this Fat Fast?


    I haven't tried it myself but I've corresponded with
    plenty who have do it. It is tactically an abuse because
    the fat fast is for people who never got into ketosis at
    20 so it's not for breaking stalls. Be that as it may,
    my objection to abuses is doing them out of ignorance
    and not knowing the dangers. As long as you can explain
    to my why you're not qualified to do the fat fast, what
    the dangers are, I'm happy to suggest it as a stall buster.

    Over the years, I've studied why the fat fast works and
    come up with a less radical way that works nearly as
    well for busting stalls. It isn't even outside of
    realm of regular Atkisn food - Find your CCLL by spending
    a week out of ketosis and then going 5-10 below that
    level (lower carbs is not why the fat fast works so well).
    Find your minimum protein using a gram-per-pound guideline
    or even better the chapter out of Protein Power, get to
    that protein level without going above it. Find your
    total calorie level using a calorie-per-pound guideline
    or even better some custom-tuned system. Then do the
    arithmatic to figure out your fat grams.

    The deal is as long as you're in ketosis less carbs are
    merely less calories. It's the fat-to-protein ratio
    that controls the rate of ketosis. So more fat at the
    expense of less protein is what triggers fat-fast level
    stall busting. I've gotten a bunch of folks to volunteer
    over the years and it works great.

    I'll go through my numbers to illustrate what I mean.
    My CCLL is 50 grams per day. At or below 50 I am in
    ketosis losing and less doesn't give more loss. My
    protein min per PP is 77 grams per day. Should I go
    below 77 I would be subject to stalls but more than 77
    is merely extra calories. That's 20*4 + 77*4 = 388
    calories so far, call it 390 for round numbers.

    I pick the guideline of 10 calaroies per pound of
    ideal weight, and my ideal weight is 175-180. So my
    target total calories for the day is 1800. Any more
    is merely extra calories that interfere with loss.
    1800 - 390 = 1410 calories from fat. 1410/9 = 157
    fat grams per day.

    So if I want to bust a stall without dropping calories
    I will want to eat 50 grams of carb, 77 grams of
    protein and 157 grams of fat per day. The level will
    trigger the best ketosis and bust a stall. All without
    going under my CCLL, without going low protein, without
    going low calorie. In other words without any of the
    risks of the fat fast. And if I chose to cut calories
    the fat can be reduced to half that level without any
    problems from insufficient fat.
     
  8. You must be in great shape, Doug.

    What's your bodyfat percentage like?

    --

    Eat less, exercise more. -- MFW

    --
    "Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > jbuch wrote:
    >> Sherman wrote:
    >>
    >> > If you've stopped losing and getting frustrated, then try the Atkins
    >> > Fat Fast. You should lose 5 to 7 pounds in less than a week.
    >> > http://shop.store.yahoo.com/carbsmart/fatfast.html

    >>
    >> The small turnoff point is the author saying she does this several times
    >> per year..... each time with some fast weight loss and a few pounds of
    >> rebound gain on termination.

    >
    > In other words there's water retention involved. Water
    > is not fat no matter that the scale registers both. It
    > clearly is not re"gain" because fat loss programs are
    > not water loss programs. This is a very important
    > point because if you fuss about water retention you
    > doom yourself to eternal self-imposed frustration while
    > if you eventually learn the difference between fat and
    > water you elevate yourself above that source of
    > frustration. The article is clear about the difference
    > because it mentions the net loss.
    >
    > A point on how the fat fast is described in the 1993
    > edition of the Atkins book - The limit in the book is
    > 7 days. For someone who never got into ketosis at 20
    > (under one percent of the population) it is a cycle of
    > 3 weeks on Induction and 1 week on fat fast.
    >
    >> Any long term users..... especially those who used it to snap a plateau
    >> and then never or rarely had to repeat this Fat Fast?

    >
    > I haven't tried it myself but I've corresponded with
    > plenty who have do it. It is tactically an abuse because
    > the fat fast is for people who never got into ketosis at
    > 20 so it's not for breaking stalls. Be that as it may,
    > my objection to abuses is doing them out of ignorance
    > and not knowing the dangers. As long as you can explain
    > to my why you're not qualified to do the fat fast, what
    > the dangers are, I'm happy to suggest it as a stall buster.
    >
    > Over the years, I've studied why the fat fast works and
    > come up with a less radical way that works nearly as
    > well for busting stalls. It isn't even outside of
    > realm of regular Atkisn food - Find your CCLL by spending
    > a week out of ketosis and then going 5-10 below that
    > level (lower carbs is not why the fat fast works so well).
    > Find your minimum protein using a gram-per-pound guideline
    > or even better the chapter out of Protein Power, get to
    > that protein level without going above it. Find your
    > total calorie level using a calorie-per-pound guideline
    > or even better some custom-tuned system. Then do the
    > arithmatic to figure out your fat grams.
    >
    > The deal is as long as you're in ketosis less carbs are
    > merely less calories. It's the fat-to-protein ratio
    > that controls the rate of ketosis. So more fat at the
    > expense of less protein is what triggers fat-fast level
    > stall busting. I've gotten a bunch of folks to volunteer
    > over the years and it works great.
    >
    > I'll go through my numbers to illustrate what I mean.
    > My CCLL is 50 grams per day. At or below 50 I am in
    > ketosis losing and less doesn't give more loss. My
    > protein min per PP is 77 grams per day. Should I go
    > below 77 I would be subject to stalls but more than 77
    > is merely extra calories. That's 20*4 + 77*4 = 388
    > calories so far, call it 390 for round numbers.
    >
    > I pick the guideline of 10 calaroies per pound of
    > ideal weight, and my ideal weight is 175-180. So my
    > target total calories for the day is 1800. Any more
    > is merely extra calories that interfere with loss.
    > 1800 - 390 = 1410 calories from fat. 1410/9 = 157
    > fat grams per day.
    >
    > So if I want to bust a stall without dropping calories
    > I will want to eat 50 grams of carb, 77 grams of
    > protein and 157 grams of fat per day. The level will
    > trigger the best ketosis and bust a stall. All without
    > going under my CCLL, without going low protein, without
    > going low calorie. In other words without any of the
    > risks of the fat fast. And if I chose to cut calories
    > the fat can be reduced to half that level without any
    > problems from insufficient fat.
    >
     
  9. JC Der Koenig wrote:
    >
    > You must be in great shape, Doug.


    Mentally, yes. I've learned the biology by making most
    of the common mistakes and by studying more deeply than
    most. Physically, that comes and goes in phases but it
    never gets too great. As long as I can pick up a
    loveseat of similar piece of furnitue and toss it, I am
    happy with my strength situation.

    > What's your bodyfat percentage like?


    No clue. I hover around half way between my best loss
    and my starting weight. It's a point I am happy with.
    Lots of posters are not happy with their current weight.
    Whether you approve of my weight or not is irrelevant
    to me and to many on the newsgroup.

    Just to check what your principle is, it boils down to
    something worse than "Those who can't do, teach", right?
    I have done, I do when I chose, I teach and the folks I
    teach do. Would that you had such a record when working
    with others.

    Speaking of my working with others, the Escribe board
    seems to have gone away. What other boards do folks
    like to use other than ASDLC? I spent years on Escribe
    and it's where I learned about the trends I discuss,
    the trends I studied to explain.
     
  10. I was wondering if your overly complex theories actually work in practice,
    but obviously that was much too personal for you.

    Now I have to wonder why you reacted so defensively to such simple
    questions.

    --

    Eat less, exercise more. -- MFW

    --
    "Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > JC Der Koenig wrote:
    >>
    >> You must be in great shape, Doug.

    >
    > Mentally, yes. I've learned the biology by making most
    > of the common mistakes and by studying more deeply than
    > most. Physically, that comes and goes in phases but it
    > never gets too great. As long as I can pick up a
    > loveseat of similar piece of furnitue and toss it, I am
    > happy with my strength situation.
    >
    >> What's your bodyfat percentage like?

    >
    > No clue. I hover around half way between my best loss
    > and my starting weight. It's a point I am happy with.
    > Lots of posters are not happy with their current weight.
    > Whether you approve of my weight or not is irrelevant
    > to me and to many on the newsgroup.
    >
    > Just to check what your principle is, it boils down to
    > something worse than "Those who can't do, teach", right?
    > I have done, I do when I chose, I teach and the folks I
    > teach do. Would that you had such a record when working
    > with others.
    >
    > Speaking of my working with others, the Escribe board
    > seems to have gone away. What other boards do folks
    > like to use other than ASDLC? I spent years on Escribe
    > and it's where I learned about the trends I discuss,
    > the trends I studied to explain.
    >
     
  11. JC Der Koenig wrote:
    >
    > I was wondering if your overly complex theories actually work in practice,
    > but obviously that was much too personal for you.


    The theories are hardly complex. They boil down to
    following the directions of Atkins without searching
    through the book for excuses to stay low.

    The theories do work well in practice. I'd done most
    of my own suggestions and they worked. I've talked
    others into doing the rest of my suggestions and they
    worked. What doesn't work is folks looking at my
    suggestions, then citing excuses in the book for
    staying low. Lots of people have done that, failed,
    and disappeared over time.

    > Now I have to wonder why you reacted so defensively to such simple
    > questions.


    That fact that's not what you asked has something
    do do with it.
     
  12. That was your shortest post of all time.

    Congratulations.

    --
    Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW


    "Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > JC Der Koenig wrote:
    >>
    >> I was wondering if your overly complex theories actually work in
    >> practice,
    >> but obviously that was much too personal for you.

    >
    > The theories are hardly complex. They boil down to
    > following the directions of Atkins without searching
    > through the book for excuses to stay low.
    >
    > The theories do work well in practice. I'd done most
    > of my own suggestions and they worked. I've talked
    > others into doing the rest of my suggestions and they
    > worked. What doesn't work is folks looking at my
    > suggestions, then citing excuses in the book for
    > staying low. Lots of people have done that, failed,
    > and disappeared over time.
    >
    >> Now I have to wonder why you reacted so defensively to such simple
    >> questions.

    >
    > That fact that's not what you asked has something
    > do do with it.
    >
     
  13. A3SS

    A3SS Guest

    On 8 Sep 2005 07:02:49 -0700, "Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]>
    insisted on the following.. :

    > JC Der Koenig wrote:
    > >
    > > I was wondering if your overly complex theories actually work in practice,
    > > but obviously that was much too personal for you.

    >
    > The theories are hardly complex. They boil down to
    > following the directions of Atkins without searching
    > through the book for excuses to stay low.
    >
    > The theories do work well in practice. I'd done most
    > of my own suggestions and they worked. I've talked
    > others into doing the rest of my suggestions and they
    > worked. What doesn't work is folks looking at my
    > suggestions, then citing excuses in the book for
    > staying low. Lots of people have done that, failed,
    > and disappeared over time.
    >
    > > Now I have to wonder why you reacted so defensively to such simple
    > > questions.

    >
    > That fact that's not what you asked has something
    > do do with it.


    Doug,

    You're giving this career troll the time of day. Beating a dead horse's
    ass. You have good and useful information that fits some people, and not
    others. What this "thing" thinks has been irrelevant even to his parents
    since he started making noises out of his ignorant face hole.

    Don't waste your time on this loser.
     
Loading...