jgc

..

gavnnik

Lack of energy/faint feeling were a problem for me in the first few days but soon went away.

Usually constipatiotn rather than diarrhea though.

SiPie

I'm no doctor but it sounds more like classic anxiety/depression symptoms to me...

Is she a nervous sort of person or been worried alot recently ?

corradoboy

These symptoms normally pass after the first 1-2 weeks. If they are persisting then maybe she hasn't been applying the diet correctly. Is she supplementing the carbs she used to eat with plenty of salad and non-root veg and drinking plenty of water. Many people have reported such symptoms whilst supposedly on Atkins, but many just misinterprit the food groups and start shovelling meat down their necks like it's going out of fashion. She certainly shouldn't have diarhea, quite the opposite normally and combined with sickness I would recommend suspending the diet and consulting a doctor. When she feels better she could try again, but if it were to produce the same effect then either the diet simply doesn't agree with her or she's doing something wrong.

milo

thats pretty standard side effects of getting into ketosis for the first time for the most part.

she's probably experienced headaches too, right?

whereas previously she was fuelling her body by carbs.. now she's fuelling it by fat. the body takes time to get used to this.

the only odd one there is the diarrhea... as with higher protein diets such as atkins, stools should be heavier... hence you should get the reverse effect.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I did it for 3 weeks and lost weight but felt great some times and thought I was dying at others, did my bike cbt in hot weather in leather and thought I was going to pass out.

Sideways

I reckon A. she's not eating enough, it states this is like no other diet and you can stuff your face and lose lots. Tell her to get some good pork scratchings and eat them when she's hungry between meals. Eat Eat Eat

B. Is she taking good multi vitamins like Sanatogen one a day ? There has been some evidence that lack of chromium can cause brain wave problems and this would make her feel tired.

I am not a doctor and this is just my opinion cause I did this for 5 months last year and lost about 4 stone. ( Its a year later and I've only put 3 of it back on )

milo

no, this is simply not true. on ANY diet, you need a calorie defecit to lose fat. it's the law of thermodynamics. there's no way of getting around it without using a fat burner.

NO diet alone allows you to consume a calorie surplus and still lose weight.

ozzy

Didn't Scoty say that in one of the Start Trek movies

Steve Perriam

my better ½ tried this and her advice is to drink more fluids........

milo

nerd

ozzy

hey, ya cheeky ******

I ain't no treky nerd, honest

ozzy

One of the lads @ work has started taking some tablets that are supposed to clean out your intestines. Apparently he read on the net that you can have up to 11lbs of gunk clinging to your intestinal walls.

Some people will do anything to lose weight, even though it's not fat. I have convinced him to join the gym and sort his diet out if he really wants to lose weight. Maybe my constant "how did you get on at the gym" every lunchtime will keep him motivated.

Stefan

Sideways

Milo thats old school thinking mate, believe me Atkins is in no way calorie dependent. ( his book states this ) Thats what gets everyone they still think calories, and with Atkins it doesn't apply.
The more you eat the more you lose because the fat you eat bonds with your fat thats already in your body and uses it for energy.

milo

bro, sorry but you're wrong. his book can state it all he wants, but it is NOT correct.

ketogenic diets STILL require a calorie deficit to work, bottom line.

the fat does NOT bond with your body - you teach your body to fuel itself from fat (as that's your fuel source). as you STILL take in a calorie deficit, your body (which fuels itself from fat now) will look to your stored fat for the extra fuel it needs to fill that deficit.

there's no old school thinking - it's physics 101.

King RA

He probably read this here: http://www.mmsfitness.com/showthread.php?t=9611

Which suggests using this http://www.oxypowder.com


I've tried the same thing myself, and if you read the article you probably would too.

OllyK

<pedant mode on>
The calorific value of a substance is purely a measure of how much a measured amount of the substance heats up a set amount of water when it is burnt.

You can eat substances with massive calorific value without gaining weight if your digestive system processes the substance inefficeintly or even not at all.

Try eating wood for a few weeks, burns very nicely but don't think you'll actually make use of many of the calories in it.

OK extreme example taken, but whatever you eat is not digested with 100% efficieny and made available to the body.

<pedant mode off>

OllyK

Olly waits for milo to come back with the definitions of the terms "take in" and "consume"

fast bloke

But the diet is not trying to alter your digestive system - the fat is adsorbed into the body - IMHO Atkins works because you make every meal from fresh - you don't eat any crap and the high protien content makes you feel fuller for longer, so you eat less. Most people who have been on it realise that after a few days you do nt feel hungry between meals, and if you want to feel full more quickly, try drinking 2 or 3 pints of water before every meal - The water makes you feel full quickly and the protien kicks in and stops you from getting hungry again for longer. You are less hungry at the start of the next meal so you don't eat as much etc etc

OllyK

I never said it was
Some of the fat is absorbed, the human digestive system is far from 100% efficient.

Not entirely sure that is relavant to why Atkins does or does not work, but it is certainly preferable from a general health point of view.

I wasn't disagreeing with milo - I was being pedantic, hence the "<pedant mode on>". I was picking up that he is essentially correct, but that in reality you can eat as much as you like providing the you burn off more calories than you body can extract from the food that you digest. Bit subtle for this time on a Friday I know

fast bloke

erm If you eat wood you cannot digest it so it goes straight through - that is why you would die from starvation - nothing to do with the calorie content. If you eat fat however, most of it ends up in your bloodstream. Maybe your Friday afternoon pedantics picked a poor analogy

OllyK

A dim bulb brightens !!! In other words the calorific value of the substance eaten is not relevant, what is relevant is the efficiency with which it is digested, and as I said at the time "OK extreme example taken"

Exactly my point - the calorie content is not important, the efficiency of the digestive process is. You can take in something with a massive calorie content and not put on weight if you cannot digest the substance efficiently, and in the case of wood it would be minimal, hence massive calories in, no weight gained :rolleye:

At least we have now got to "most", my original nit picking with milo - his statement was correct based on 100% digestive efficiency. It isn't 100% so it is still possible in a real world situation to eat food (rather than wood) that overall has a higher calorific value than what you actually burn off as only a percentage of the original calorific value of the food will be processed and made available to the body, a percentage will pass straight through. Phew!!

fast bloke

oops - didn't see your last post on that page - now it becomes clear

fast bloke

Folks - come on over and meet Olly Irrelevant

OllyK

Told you I was in a pedantic and subtle mood for a Friday!!

ozzy

Talking about the calorific value and digestive efficiency is all well and good, but it still boils down to how much food is absorbed into the body.

If you're body needs around 1500 calories per day to maintain it's weight, then above or below this value regularly over a period of time will lead to weight gain (or weight loss).

It's not just about counting calories (although you can't ignore it), but also involves what you eat and how your body burns whatever fuel you've digested and has been absorbed into your body.

If you participate in sports, how do you manage your diet to compensate for what you've burned up, how your blood sugar levels are maintained, how much vitamins, minerals, amino acids you need to repair tissue damaged during exercise????

I still maintain that you don't see any fat athletes that manage their diets properly. Basically they eat what they need to fuel their bodies and help it recover after exercise. I personally don't know anyone who participates in regular sport that needs to resort to any fancy dieting. They just reduce their intake, cut out cr@p, sugary food and continue exercising.

All the people I've personally met who've tried or are on Atkins aren't sporty. They may say, "oh, I go to the gym regularly", but what they actually do there doesn't burn enough calories or they just eat too much sugary foods and pile on weight that way.

Stefan

OllyK

<pedant mode on>
Ahh but....oh sod it...
<pedant mode off>

I think we are all violently agreeing here. I wasn't disagreeing with the basic concepts, just nit picking on some of the terminology being used. i.e. was "consumed" what actually passes through your mouth or what actually passes through the gut wall as usuable sugars etc.

If we are talking about actually calories that make it to the cells to allow them to do their job, then yes there needs to be a deficit at that level, but not necessariliy at the what enters the mouth level due to the inefficiences of the gut in processing the food.

Personally I think there is no substitute for a well balanced diet with plenty of fruit and veg with a minimal requirement for fat and processed sugars. OK specialist applications will have a preferance for higher proteins etc, but in general terms.

ozzy

I'd agree with that, but you can't expect Joe Public to know what the efficiency of a particular food is in any great detail. Counting calories isn't as bad as it's made out, but the problem is that it doesn't work with a lot of processed foods.

People concentrate on the big figure and over-simplify it. That's why diest that cut out a lot of sugar and processed cr@p result in weight loss. They could probably have achieved the same results just by switching to a healthy diet full of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, home-cooked meals, virtually added sugar and some good old fashoined regular exercise.

A lot of people look to Atkins as a quick fix. Not a huge problem in itself, but it rarely lasts and it doesn't exercise their heart or lungs, doesn't strengthen muscles and tendons and doesn't introduce any weight bearing exercise that can strengthen their bones.

Scotland has the highest rate of heart disease in Europe and the last thing we need is Atkins to deal with obesity here. So, I'm not anti-Atkins, I'm just anti-quick-fix and **** all exercise.

The ones I know of on Atkins are losing weight, but they're still unhealthy. They'd struggle to run for a bus or carry some shopping more than 10 yrds to their cars. They also moan that they're too old to play football with their kids, yet they're just too unfit to play for longer than 10mins.

Anyway, enough of my rantings

Stefan

OllyK

Oh I agree, but I think far too many wrong, conflicting and spurious messages are getting out and "Joe Public" jumps on the band waggon, thinking they can eat 10 lbs of lard a day and they will look like Kylie inside of 6 weeks.

I am not one for wanting to legislate every last thing, but I do think that anything that makes any health related claims, be that Diet Books, food additives, special powders, homoeopathy etc etc should not be released to the general public until it has undergone some serious scientific investigation. If it doesn't stand up then it should not be released.

TelBoy

I agree.