🚀 go-pugleaf

"revek" <tanirevek@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bomi5d$1gnjt3$1@ID-190183.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:mKzrb.10339$jy.4609@clgrps13...
> >
> > "revek" <tanirevek@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:bom76l$1fjjob$1@ID-190183.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > "Patricia Heil" <pjayheil@erols.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3FAE48AD.675B4C1@erols.com...
> > > > I recently posted here that one of my concerns with Atkins is
> > > > that 68% of those who tried it, in one clinical study, wound up
> > > > constipated.
> > >
> > > And how long was this study?  Did they ever get past the first
> phase?
> > > That is kind of important, as you move past induction, which is
> > > supposed to last 2 weeks only, you are supposed to begin eating
> more
> > > vegetables, and less of other things.  Two weeks is not long
> enough to
> > > give you long term problems, and any study that focuses on the
> > > begining stage as if it is the whole diet is worthless as a source
> of
> > > information.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > and i have read that some people's initial phase lasts longer based
> on how
> > much they want or need to loose. Is that true?
>
> They may base it on those criteria, but if they did, they would be
> doing Atkins incorrectly.  Induction is more than just limiting
> yourself to 20 carbs per day, it's also restricting certain foods
> known to cause problems in some people.  (The induction phase is the
> first part of an elimination diet to help find food allergies and food
> triggers-- the things that make you binge, as well as 'kick starting'
> weight loss for motivational purposes).  It's also about teaching
> people who don't eat healthy or know much about portion control or how
> to listen to their bodies (or they wouldn't have gotten fat, in most
> cases) almost effortlessly.
>
> Once past induction, you may stay at 20 grams if you feel comfortable
> there but you stop eating from the restricted induction list only.
> Staying on the induction food list or restricting your carbs to
> induction levels instead of some other number in no way helps you lose
> faster or any more, even though many people assume it does.
>
>
> > > That is bad for long term health.  Removing fiber
> > > > from the diet demonstrably leads to colo-rectal cancer, the
> > > > third leading cancer killer behind lung cancer and prostate
> cancer,
> > > > and therefore the #2 preventable killer cancer.
> > >
> >
> > that is a very good point. i am sure that a proponent of the diet
> could
> > bring up something to debate you on this, but i havent seen anything
> of that
> > sort yet.
> >
> > > Atkins goes out of it's way to insist on lots of fiber-- and in
> the
> > > two week beiginning phase if you do not eat enough fiberous
> > > vegetables, you are supposed to ease the *temporary* situation
> with
> > > fiber supplements.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So does that prevent the above?
>
> Studies suggest that fiber helps reduce the occurence of colon-rectal
> cancer.  If Atkins done correctly means lots of fiber, then that would
> suggest that Atkins could be a viable strategy against colon-rectal
> cancer.
>
> Studies also suggest that glucose is cancer's best friend.  Sugars and
> starches convert to glucose.  Reducing as much as possible sugars and
> starches, while increasing fiber and vitamins through  high nutrient
> vegetables (ala Akins) would seem to be a sensible thing to do, if you
> worry about such things.
>
> Fat and protien also have their debatable points.  But since that
> covers all the calorie sources available to humans, we'll just have to
> make do with what we have.
>
> revek  (nothing is all black or all white in the world of
> nutrition.... except transfats LOL)
>
>
>

Awesome. Thank you!
I am getting alot out of this.
One of the things is that I may not have to cut out ALL carbs, just the
white fours, white sugars, glucose/fructose, and then be careful of what I
eat.

Atkins sounds ideal, and I know that even on Atkins you need to exercise
(lots of people think that Atkins is just some magical diet idea, and it
isn't), however I don't like the idea of no carbs, based on how I felt
before.

I may give it another shot, but them more I read about entering ketosis, the
more it seems as if its a hard change on the body.
I will give it some more thought based on what I read on the net and in this
thread.

IF I do go on Atkins again, I will do it right, and follow it pretty much
exactly.

"Perple Gyrl" <perpleglow@comcast.net> wrote in news:17adnW7G8OlRJjCiRVn-
gg@comcast.com:

> Atkins has been around for over 20 years.... it isn't a new way of
> eating....

To go a step further, eating lots of breads processed foods is actually
the new way of eating. Grains have only recently become part of the human
diet, and highly refined foods (and refined sugars) even more recently than
that. 

Our biology hasn't had a chance to catch up - it's still wired for meat,
leaves, fruits and vegetables. So you could say that Atkins and similar
diets are more of a return to what we're adapted to eat.

"Qilt Kitty" <qilt@kitty.com> wrote in message
news:1g465kj.2uhv8y15czsciN%qilt@kitty.com...
> Couldn't he just remove the refined carbs in his diet and slowly back
> into it since the actual induction period is way to hard on him??
>
>

Yeah, that is what I am starting to read from this thread.
As I said, the induction phase was hard on my PHYSICALLY. some people claim
that its a lack of discipline that keeps many away, but for me it was "I
think I am going to pass out, my hands are shaking" sort of problem.

revek <tanirevek@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:wbzrb.2202$ys2.1144@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> 
> > Gay as in happy. Try to think outside the box you've built for
> yourself.
> 
> Also gay as in extremely lame, as the teenagers in this part of the
> country use the term.  Language mutates.

language is a virus from outer space. -- william s. burroughs

Steven C (Doktersteve) <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:G8Arb.3401$sF1.3200@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ONzrb.10340$jy.4331@clgrps13...
> > >
> > > "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is
> > > > > categorized as obese.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
> > > >
> > > > Idiot.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Like I said, I do not have a ton of excess flab, and alot of it is
> muscle.
> > > so I don't put alot into what a persons BMI index is unless they are
> > really
> > > noticeably fat.
> > >
> > > I don't have a double chin, and my arms, legs, and neck look slim. the
> > > weight I want to loose is around my stomach and sides, to give you an
> > idea.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm the one that wrote that you're probably NOT obese. Low carbing (not
> > neccessarily Atkins) is a proven winner in dropping bodyfat% if you engage
> > in a consistent exercise program. Lifting heavy things would be preferred
> > over cardio stuff. If you feel that you must do cardio, look into HIIT.
> >
> >
> 
> Sorry, I didn't meant to sound combative. I appreciate what you said.
> I can work out, do weights. That isn't a problem. I have noticed in the past
> that my muscles react very well to a workout, and within a few weeks I see a
> difference, the problem was before that I had tried a low fat low calorie
> diet, with LOTS of cardio, which left me constantly hungry and needing more
> and more cardio to keep up with any sort of weight loss.
> I believe that muscle burns fat, and that gaining a reasonable amount of
> well toned muscle will eventually speed up metabolism to a certain degree (I
> am not being unrealistic though, I have a medium paced metabolism), and that
> in time I can kick some of this fat off.
> 
> I have a question.
> In the first phase of Atkins, you are stuck at less than 30 grams of carbs a
> day.
> A low carb diet is what the Suzanne sommers diet is based around, and I hear
> it really works, so how many carbs is "low carb".
> Obviously you want to cut out the empty carbs like glucose-fructose and
> white sugars, and replace them with complete complex sugars, but how many
> carbs do you cut out?
> 
> Thanks for the reply to this thread btw. you are being helpful, while so
> many are just being goofy.

ARE YOU READING THIS, ASDL-C?  YEAH, I'M TALKIN' TO YOU.  SOMEONE FINDS
JC HELPFUL!  HELPFUL, I SAY!  

sorry to hijack your thread, Steven.  carry on.  

ps: atkins induction is 20 grams a day for two weeks, but there are ways
of eating low carb without following atkins.  in fact, you don't need a
formal diet plan at all to eat low carb.

    

Qilt Kitty <qilt@kitty.com> wrote:

> Couldn't he just remove the refined carbs in his diet and slowly back
> into it since the actual induction period is way to hard on him??

of course he can.  

"Qilt Kitty" <qilt@kitty.com> wrote in message
news:1g465kj.2uhv8y15czsciN%qilt@kitty.com...
> Couldn't he just remove the refined carbs in his diet and slowly
back
> into it since the actual induction period is way to hard on him??

Yes that is a doable approach, but he wouldn't get any of the other
benefits of induction, namely almost imediate suppression of the
appetite, dropping a bunch of excess water, breaking carb addiction
(and perhaps caffine too), and setting himself up to test for food
intolerances, allergies, and triggers.  I discovered a wheat
intolerance in myself I never knew I had until I did induction.

It really depends on what he wants and needs.

revek


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 11/3/2003

Steven C (Doktersteve) <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, that is what I am starting to read from this thread.
> As I said, the induction phase was hard on my PHYSICALLY. some people claim
> that its a lack of discipline that keeps many away, but for me it was "I
> think I am going to pass out, my hands are shaking" sort of problem.

Then the best thing to do to make sure YOU succeed is to maybe start at
say 30 - 35g carb max per day .. try it for a few days, and if that is
okay for you, the next week go lower by 5g  .. reverse the phases is all
.. I'm not sure if your weight loss with be the big whoosh that every
that does a "pure" induction gets, but some/any weight loss has to be
better than not being able to handle the food plan physically .. 

And there is NO shame in that .. you tailor the plan to fit YOUR current
needs, but remember that it needs to be altered as you adjust.

-- 
Kitty      =^..^=
NO MORE NUTS KITTY!!!!!
168/160/130 – November Goal 155
September 17 2003

Steven C (Doktersteve) <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I may give it another shot, but them more I read about entering ketosis, the
> more it seems as if its a hard change on the body.
> I will give it some more thought based on what I read on the net and in this
> thread.

It's not a change that you will notice very much at all .. it occurs
while people are "withdrawing" from their various addictions / food
loves

One thing is to be sure to take your supplements, if you were female I
would HIGHLY stress the calcium, but not sure on the males .. you might
want to research this yourself in google or on the atkins site.

-- 
Kitty      =^..^=
NO MORE NUTS KITTY!!!!!
168/160/130 – November Goal 155
September 17 2003

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote in message
news:1g45zkh.yievsq1mduqtgN%dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet...
> > I have a question.
> > In the first phase of Atkins, you are stuck at less than 30 grams
of carbs a
> > day.
> > A low carb diet is what the Suzanne sommers diet is based around,
and I hear
> > it really works, so how many carbs is "low carb".

In general, any diet that is less than 100 grams a day is considered
low carb, but every plan varies, and so does every body.  Your
personal maximum is what you need to go by.  How do you find out?
Several different plans have a way to help you find out what it is.
Increase your daily carb allotment each week until you stop losing.
Your personal maximum loss would be about 5 to 10 grams below that
point.


> ARE YOU READING THIS, ASDL-C?  YEAH, I'M TALKIN' TO YOU.  SOMEONE
FINDS
> JC HELPFUL!  HELPFUL, I SAY!

It's been noticed in other threads too.

revek


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 11/3/2003

"Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:uuArb.35332$%Q5.11072@edtnps84...
>
> "Qilt Kitty" <qilt@kitty.com> wrote in message
> news:1g465kj.2uhv8y15czsciN%qilt@kitty.com...
> > Couldn't he just remove the refined carbs in his diet and slowly
back
> > into it since the actual induction period is way to hard on him??
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, that is what I am starting to read from this thread.
> As I said, the induction phase was hard on my PHYSICALLY. some
people claim
> that its a lack of discipline that keeps many away, but for me it
was "I
> think I am going to pass out, my hands are shaking" sort of problem.

Are you sure you were eating enough calories?

revek


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 11/3/2003

"Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:QsArb.35309$%Q5.4974@edtnps84...

> Awesome. Thank you!
> I am getting alot out of this.

Glad to have helped.

> One of the things is that I may not have to cut out ALL carbs, just
the
> white fours, white sugars, glucose/fructose, and then be careful of
what I
> eat.

Contrary to the media's portrayal, Atkins is not the meat and cheese
diet.  Yes, you can eat saturated fat.  But you're not required to,
and the prefered meats are fish and chicken, and in moderate amounts.
Just because a diet allows something doesn't mean you have to gorge
yourself on it.

> Atkins sounds ideal, and I know that even on Atkins you need to
exercise
> (lots of people think that Atkins is just some magical diet idea,
and it
> isn't), however I don't like the idea of no carbs, based on how I
felt
> before.

Yep.  It is extremely hard to do zero carbs.  What you want to try to
do is get most of them from your fiberous veggies.

> I may give it another shot, but them more I read about entering
ketosis, the
> more it seems as if its a hard change on the body.
> I will give it some more thought based on what I read on the net and
in this
> thread.

Ketosis is a natural human state, and we were designed to live in that
state for large amounts of time (ice age didn't have large amounts of
high carb food lying around).

> IF I do go on Atkins again, I will do it right, and follow it pretty
much
> exactly.

From your other comments, you might not be able to go quite so low as
20,  but 25 or 30 will do.  Plus you still need to watch your
calories.  Both too high and too low cause problems.

revek


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 11/3/2003

"Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:epArb.35259$%Q5.25028@edtnps84...
>
> "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:G8Arb.3401$sF1.3200@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ONzrb.10340$jy.4331@clgrps13...
> > >
> > > "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is
> > > > > categorized as obese.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
> > > >
> > > > Idiot.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Like I said, I do not have a ton of excess flab, and alot of it is
> muscle.
> > > so I don't put alot into what a persons BMI index is unless they are
> > really
> > > noticeably fat.
> > >
> > > I don't have a double chin, and my arms, legs, and neck look slim. the
> > > weight I want to loose is around my stomach and sides, to give you an
> > idea.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm the one that wrote that you're probably NOT obese. Low carbing (not
> > neccessarily Atkins) is a proven winner in dropping bodyfat% if you
engage
> > in a consistent exercise program. Lifting heavy things would be
preferred
> > over cardio stuff. If you feel that you must do cardio, look into HIIT.
> >
> >
>
> Sorry, I didn't meant to sound combative. I appreciate what you said.
> I can work out, do weights. That isn't a problem. I have noticed in the
past
> that my muscles react very well to a workout, and within a few weeks I see
a
> difference, the problem was before that I had tried a low fat low calorie
> diet, with LOTS of cardio, which left me constantly hungry and needing
more
> and more cardio to keep up with any sort of weight loss.
> I believe that muscle burns fat, and that gaining a reasonable amount of
> well toned muscle will eventually speed up metabolism to a certain degree
(I
> am not being unrealistic though, I have a medium paced metabolism), and
that
> in time I can kick some of this fat off.
>
> I have a question.
> In the first phase of Atkins, you are stuck at less than 30 grams of carbs
a
> day.
> A low carb diet is what the Suzanne sommers diet is based around, and I
hear
> it really works, so how many carbs is "low carb".
> Obviously you want to cut out the empty carbs like glucose-fructose and
> white sugars, and replace them with complete complex sugars, but how many
> carbs do you cut out?
>

Most of this has already been answered by others already. Just cut your
carbs until you find the amount that lets you get through the day and still
lose fat. I would also add that walnuts, pecans, almonds and sunflower seeds
are a very good supplement to a low carb diet, as long as you don't over-do
them.

The Queen of Cans and Jars <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:

> > Couldn't he just remove the refined carbs in his diet and slowly back
> > into it since the actual induction period is way to hard on him??
> 
> of course he can.  

Okay then what's the big deal???  Or am I missing something .. Rule of
thumb .. for exercise and intake .. "LISTEN TO YOUR BODY"

-- 
Kitty      =^..^=
NO MORE NUTS KITTY!!!!!
168/160/130 – November Goal 155
September 17 2003

revek <tanirevek@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes that is a doable approach, but he wouldn't get any of the other
> benefits of induction, namely almost imediate suppression of the
> appetite, dropping a bunch of excess water, breaking carb addiction

I agree 100%, but if he can wean himself off whatever he is addicted to
to more tolerable levels, then he can do induction .. just an extra step
or four ;)

-- 
Kitty      =^..^=
NO MORE NUTS KITTY!!!!!
168/160/130 – November Goal 155
September 17 2003

revek <tanirevek@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ketosis is a natural human state, and we were designed to live in that
> state for large amounts of time (ice age didn't have large amounts of
> high carb food lying around).

heh heh ..that's what I say when I try to explain WHY the eating this
way is so beneficial to people.  I tell them (being a total smartass of
course) .. wayy back in time in a cave .. ugga .. we needums more BREAD
.. uggabugga .. get some bread ugga at the store ugga .. Then they look
at me (heh heh) and say, okay, you got a point there .. no shit
sherlock!

They tend to get the point very quickly.  I just basically say, that way
back when, man didn't have all these breads and crackers and pastas and
staff .. Neanderthal man ate fruits, veggies, nuts, berries and meat ..
heh .. even my 8 yo DS gets this concept :D

-- 
Kitty      =^..^=
NO MORE NUTS KITTY!!!!!
168/160/130 – November Goal 155
September 17 2003

JC Der Koenig <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote:

> "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:epArb.35259$%Q5.25028@edtnps84...
> >
> > "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote in message
> > news:G8Arb.3401$sF1.3200@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ONzrb.10340$jy.4331@clgrps13...
> > > >
> > > > "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is
> > > > > > categorized as obese.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
> > > > >
> > > > > Idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Like I said, I do not have a ton of excess flab, and alot of it is
> > muscle.
> > > > so I don't put alot into what a persons BMI index is unless they are
> > > really
> > > > noticeably fat.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have a double chin, and my arms, legs, and neck look slim. the
> > > > weight I want to loose is around my stomach and sides, to give you an
> > > idea.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm the one that wrote that you're probably NOT obese. Low carbing (not
> > > neccessarily Atkins) is a proven winner in dropping bodyfat% if you
> engage
> > > in a consistent exercise program. Lifting heavy things would be
> preferred
> > > over cardio stuff. If you feel that you must do cardio, look into HIIT.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't meant to sound combative. I appreciate what you said.
> > I can work out, do weights. That isn't a problem. I have noticed in the
> past
> > that my muscles react very well to a workout, and within a few weeks I see
> a
> > difference, the problem was before that I had tried a low fat low calorie
> > diet, with LOTS of cardio, which left me constantly hungry and needing
> more
> > and more cardio to keep up with any sort of weight loss.
> > I believe that muscle burns fat, and that gaining a reasonable amount of
> > well toned muscle will eventually speed up metabolism to a certain degree
> (I
> > am not being unrealistic though, I have a medium paced metabolism), and
> that
> > in time I can kick some of this fat off.
> >
> > I have a question.
> > In the first phase of Atkins, you are stuck at less than 30 grams of carbs
> a
> > day.
> > A low carb diet is what the Suzanne sommers diet is based around, and I
> hear
> > it really works, so how many carbs is "low carb".
> > Obviously you want to cut out the empty carbs like glucose-fructose and
> > white sugars, and replace them with complete complex sugars, but how many
> > carbs do you cut out?
> >
> 
> Most of this has already been answered by others already. Just cut your
> carbs until you find the amount that lets you get through the day and still
> lose fat. I would also add that walnuts, pecans, almonds and sunflower seeds
> are a very good supplement to a low carb diet, as long as you don't over-do
> them.

**THUD**

**kitty has passed out from shock ....

-- 
Kitty      =^..^=
NO MORE NUTS KITTY!!!!!
168/160/130 – November Goal 155
September 17 2003

roger <roger@rammjet.com> wrote:

>  Btw, it is not a lack of IQ, it is low IQ. 

heh heh .. you sure that they aren't the same thing in some cases???

-- 
Kitty      =^..^=
NO MORE NUTS KITTY!!!!!
168/160/130 – November Goal 155
September 17 2003

On 9 Nov 2003 20:06:43 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote:

>Vegetarian wrote:
>
>> JC Der Koenig wrote: 
>>>> Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which
>>>> is categorized as obese.
>>> 
>>> And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
>>> 
>>> Idiot.
>> 
>> I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless
>> muscles is doing anything good for his health. Having a BMI
>> of 32 is bad. Being fat at BMI 32 is horrible, being
>> muscular at BMI 32 is not that great either.
>
>References?  Can you point to any peer-reviewed studies that 
>indicate that "excess" muscle mass raises health risk?  BMI is 
>used as a simple-minded proxy for BF% because, in the broad 
>cross-section of society, people with high BMI have high BF.  
>It is an unwarranted leap to conclude that high BMI with low 
>BF% causes health risk.
>
>> Some dumbo bodybuilders think that by growing muscles, they
>> are doing themselves a favor. One needs to only look at
>> their IQ to realize that it is not the case and that they
>> are not benefitting. 
>
>Fascinating.  Please describe the process by which you 
>conflated an interest in hypertropy with a lack of IQ.


He's troll bait, Wayne. Ignore.

"Qilt Kitty" <qilt@kitty.com> wrote in message
news:1g46b0h.uoc9hz1ly9uq5N%qilt@kitty.com...
> The Queen of Cans and Jars <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
>
> > > Couldn't he just remove the refined carbs in his diet and slowly
back
> > > into it since the actual induction period is way to hard on
him??
> >
> > of course he can.
>
> Okay then what's the big deal???  Or am I missing something .. Rule
of
> thumb .. for exercise and intake .. "LISTEN TO YOUR BODY"

Some people are so saturated with carbs physically, and steeped in the
'party line' aka the food pyramid, that they have stopped listening to
their bodies, if they ever knew how.

revek


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 11/3/2003

revek <tanirevek@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Some people are so saturated with carbs physically, and steeped in the
> 'party line' aka the food pyramid, that they have stopped listening to
> their bodies, if they ever knew how.

I rather like our inverted or negative food pyramid better. :D

True .. my boo

-- 
Kitty      =^..^=
NO MORE NUTS KITTY!!!!!
168/160/130 – November Goal 155
September 17 2003

In article <1g45zkh.yievsq1mduqtgN%dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet>,
 dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:

> > Thanks for the reply to this thread btw. you are being helpful, while so
> > many are just being goofy.
> 
> ARE YOU READING THIS, ASDL-C?  YEAH, I'M TALKIN' TO YOU.  SOMEONE FINDS
> JC HELPFUL!  HELPFUL, I SAY!  
> 
> sorry to hijack your thread, Steven.  carry on.  
> 
> ps: atkins induction is 20 grams a day for two weeks, but there are ways
> of eating low carb without following atkins.  in fact, you don't need a
> formal diet plan at all to eat low carb.
> 
>     

I often find JC helpful.  Rude and crude, but helpful.

-- 
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna

In article <1g46b2v.ikzf1h1hvz4kzN%qilt@kitty.com>,
 qilt@kitty.com (Qilt Kitty) wrote:

> revek <tanirevek@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yes that is a doable approach, but he wouldn't get any of the other
> > benefits of induction, namely almost imediate suppression of the
> > appetite, dropping a bunch of excess water, breaking carb addiction
> 
> I agree 100%, but if he can wean himself off whatever he is addicted to
> to more tolerable levels, then he can do induction .. just an extra step
> or four ;)

I did the "weaning" thing. I used to eat pasta twice a day, usually skipped 
breakfast. I didn't count carbs but I started by replacing one pasta meal a 
day with a salad with grilled chicken, and then 2 or 3 weeks later I 
replaced my other pasta meal with a low-carb option, such as steak and 
brocolli, meat and cheese rollups, fish and creamed spinach, etc.  I had 
already stopped with the chips and candy many months before while trying to 
do low-fat.  I never did care much for cereal or sandwiches, so I didn't 
have to eliminate those, just that darn pasta.  I didn't really know 
anything about Atkins when I started low-carbing, I was just trying to eat 
foods that didn't make me so sleepy, and the weight loss was a surprise.  I 
never had that big loss from induction, but hey, 35-ish pounds gone since 
May, fine by me.

-- 
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna

JC Der Koenig wrote:

>"Black Jacque Shellacque" <spammers@are.vermin> wrote in message
>news:4Yjrb.7564$jy.6471@clgrps13...
>  
>
>>JC Der Koenig wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>why don't you go back to sucking your boyfriends dick and leave the diet
>>>advice to the competent.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>....hark....an asshole speaketh......
>>
>>    
>>
>
>So speak up, asshole.
>

Don't have to, you already did.

>
>
>  
>


-- 
  Getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts
 --Jeff Foxworthy

revek wrote:

> "Robert Schuh" <rob@robschuh.com> wrote in message
> news:3FAEB658.6BD46C93@robschuh.com...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > > "Vegetarian" <john@john.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bom4r0$2pf$0@pita.alt.net...
> > > > In article <ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, JC
> Der Koenig
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is
> > > > >> categorized as obese.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
> > > > >
> > > > > Idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless
> muscles is
> > > > doing anything good for his health. Having a BMI of 32 is bad.
> Being
> > > > fat at BMI 32 is horrible, being muscular at BMI 32 is not that
> great
> > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > Some dumbo bodybuilders think that by growing muscles, they are
> doing
> > > > themselves a favor. One needs to only look at their IQ to
> realize that
> > > > it is not the case and that they are not benefitting.
> > > >
> > > > John.
> > >
> > > I've been laboring under the misconception that any correlation
> between
> > > muscularity and intelligence is strictly coincidental. Would you
> care to
> > > cite any studies that back up your gay little hypothesis?
> >
> > JC,
> > You were doing well until you threw in your "gay" comment.
> Homophobia has no
> > place in this argument.
>
> But pedophilia apparently does.

Learn the difference between humor and bigotry.

>
>
> Stick to the facts. I thought that most people stopped
> > thinking calling someone "gay" was an insult after the 5th grade or
> so.
>
> Please.  Come back and moralize at others when you can live up to your
> own standards.

I do asshole. I have forgotten more about these topics than 99.99999% of
you clowns will ever know.

>
>
> "John, when you butch up and learn a thing or two about these topics
> come back, but for now, just keep fondling your neighbor's 5 year old
> son."
>
> Message-ID: <3FAEB5B6.DD84A748@robschuh.com>
>
> revek
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 11/3/2003

How about posting your name to your cowardly commentary??


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
 intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
 the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
 the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
 - Nietzsche
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - Zappa

JC Der Koenig wrote:

> "Robert Schuh" <rob@robschuh.com> wrote in message
> news:3FAEB658.6BD46C93@robschuh.com...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > > "Vegetarian" <john@john.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bom4r0$2pf$0@pita.alt.net...
> > > > In article <ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, JC Der
> Koenig
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is
> > > > >> categorized as obese.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
> > > > >
> > > > > Idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless muscles is
> > > > doing anything good for his health. Having a BMI of 32 is bad. Being
> > > > fat at BMI 32 is horrible, being muscular at BMI 32 is not that great
> > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > Some dumbo bodybuilders think that by growing muscles, they are doing
> > > > themselves a favor. One needs to only look at their IQ to realize that
> > > > it is not the case and that they are not benefitting.
> > > >
> > > > John.
> > >
> > > I've been laboring under the misconception that any correlation between
> > > muscularity and intelligence is strictly coincidental. Would you care to
> > > cite any studies that back up your gay little hypothesis?
> >
> > JC,
> > You were doing well until you threw in your "gay" comment. Homophobia has
> no
> > place in this argument. Stick to the facts. I thought that most people
> stopped
> > thinking calling someone "gay" was an insult after the 5th grade or so.
> >
> >
>
> Gay as in happy. Try to think outside the box you've built for yourself.

Nice try asshole, but you know you were being a bigoted little twat.


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
 intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
 the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
 the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
 - Nietzsche
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - Zappa

roger wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:49:12 -0700, Robert Schuh <rob@robschuh.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >JC,
> >You were doing well until you threw in your "gay" comment. Homophobia has no
> >place in this argument. Stick to the facts.
>
> Interesting comment from Schuh who said this to me in a thread:
>
> >Go back to getting your kiddy porn collection
> >on alphabetical order.
>
> I guess throwing in a pedophilia comment is appropriate. Pot, kettle
> black.
>
> Roger
> >

Listen you anonymous little twat, there is a HUGE difference between humor and
bigotry. It is not my fault that you are a moron. Go smack your parents for your
poor genes.


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
 intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
 the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
 the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
 - Nietzsche
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - Zappa

roger wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:46:30 -0700, Robert Schuh <rob@robschuh.com>
> wrote:
>
> >  but for now, just keep fondling your neighbor's 5 year
> >old son.
>
> Schuh seems to have a preoccupation with pedophilic fantasies. I
> repeat my hope that he never raised any children.
>
> Roger

Once again, fuck you and your kids. How about addressing the facts here
correctly? That is the MAIN issue here. All of you anonymous clowns are
a waste of time anyway.


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
 intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
 the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
 the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
 - Nietzsche
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - Zappa

"Robert Schuh" <rob@robschuh.com> wrote
>
> Learn the difference between humor and bigotry.

Q: What do you call an African-American neurosurgeon?

A: Nigger.

Hmmm....could be both :)

David

"Robert Schuh" <rob@robschuh.com> wrote in message
news:3FAF4738.181C09D6@robschuh.com...

> > Homophobia has no
> > > place in this argument.
> >
> > But pedophilia apparently does.
>
> Learn the difference between humor and bigotry.

You have some special code only you can read that signals when you're
being cute?   You've posted like drivel before, or so another poster
says.  Pulling the "it was only a joke" routine in the middle of an
argument might get you off once.  Once.


> > Stick to the facts. I thought that most people stopped
> > > thinking calling someone "gay" was an insult after the 5th grade
or
> > so.
> >
> > Please.  Come back and moralize at others when you can live up to
your
> > own standards.
>
> I do asshole.

Cute.  You're projecting again.

I have forgotten more about these topics than 99.99999% of
> you clowns will ever know.

Or so you claim.  I have more sense than to take your word alone for
it.

> > "John, when you butch up and learn a thing or two about these
topics
> > come back, but for now, just keep fondling your neighbor's 5 year
old
> > son."
> >
> > Message-ID: <3FAEB5B6.DD84A748@robschuh.com>
> >
> > revek

> How about posting your name to your cowardly commentary??

Why?

revek


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 11/4/2003

"Robert Schuh" <rob@robschuh.com> wrote in message
news:3FAF4768.B6CDA5A0@robschuh.com...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> > "Robert Schuh" <rob@robschuh.com> wrote in message
> > news:3FAEB658.6BD46C93@robschuh.com...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Vegetarian" <john@john.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:bom4r0$2pf$0@pita.alt.net...
> > > > > In article <ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, JC Der
> > Koenig
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is
> > > > > >> categorized as obese.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Idiot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless muscles
is
> > > > > doing anything good for his health. Having a BMI of 32 is bad.
Being
> > > > > fat at BMI 32 is horrible, being muscular at BMI 32 is not that
great
> > > > > either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some dumbo bodybuilders think that by growing muscles, they are
doing
> > > > > themselves a favor. One needs to only look at their IQ to realize
that
> > > > > it is not the case and that they are not benefitting.
> > > > >
> > > > > John.
> > > >
> > > > I've been laboring under the misconception that any correlation
between
> > > > muscularity and intelligence is strictly coincidental. Would you
care to
> > > > cite any studies that back up your gay little hypothesis?
> > >
> > > JC,
> > > You were doing well until you threw in your "gay" comment. Homophobia
has
> > no
> > > place in this argument. Stick to the facts. I thought that most people
> > stopped
> > > thinking calling someone "gay" was an insult after the 5th grade or
so.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Gay as in happy. Try to think outside the box you've built for yourself.
>
> Nice try asshole, but you know you were being a bigoted little twat.
>
>
So what about this obsession of yours with the topics of homosexuality and
pedophilia? Is there something that happened to you as a youngster?

> If you think promoting Atkins makes you competent, you are wrong.  Mad
> hatter is correct.  You MUST exercise, and you MUST have a proper diet.  It
> is that simple.  People fail at these fad diets because they are just that,
> fads.  

Words of wisdom :-) 

> Akins maintains a Cult like following, so I am guessing my words will fall
> on deaf ears.

That's true of any weight loss plan, really. We went to Weight
Watchers and lost a combined 70lbs. We reached and exceeded our 10%
goal and have kept the weight off for over a year. Some WW members
were pretty fanatical about keeping track of everything, but I don't
think it's a fault of the program. I guess it is easy to get obsessed
with what you eat. The group leader was a hoot and it was nice to get
out and chat with other people trying to lose weight. We don't go
anymore because we don't need the support so much. WW was really
eye-opening and it was mostly about changing behaviour - like finding
something to do if you're bored instead of eating, or find another way
to deal with a personal problem rather than drowning it in a bag of
chips. There are no bad foods on WW :-) It really teaches restraint
and moderation.

OTOH, a friend of ours keeps touting Atkins as the greatest thing
since apple pie. He was always putting down WW and said it was a waste
of money. He rallies on and on about ketosis, but, the fact of the
matter is, two years later, we met our weight loss goals and he hasn't
lost a pound. I think WW was money well spent. I'm not bashing Atkins,
but I think too many people fall into the rah! rah! rah! trap and then
are not able to follow or commit to their weight-loss plan at all. If
Atkins works for you, great :-) Different things work for different
folks.

Best,
Christine

In article <56cc9ba7.0311100820.7bc19d60@posting.google.com>,
 webmaster@gonzo.org (Christine O) wrote:

> > If you think promoting Atkins makes you competent, you are wrong.  Mad
> > hatter is correct.  You MUST exercise, and you MUST have a proper diet.  It
> > is that simple.  People fail at these fad diets because they are just that,
> > fads.  
> 
> Words of wisdom :-) 
> 
> > Akins maintains a Cult like following, so I am guessing my words will fall
> > on deaf ears.
> 
> That's true of any weight loss plan, really. We went to Weight
> Watchers and lost a combined 70lbs. We reached and exceeded our 10%
> goal and have kept the weight off for over a year. Some WW members
> were pretty fanatical about keeping track of everything, but I don't
> think it's a fault of the program. I guess it is easy to get obsessed
> with what you eat. The group leader was a hoot and it was nice to get
> out and chat with other people trying to lose weight. We don't go
> anymore because we don't need the support so much. WW was really
> eye-opening and it was mostly about changing behaviour - like finding
> something to do if you're bored instead of eating, or find another way
> to deal with a personal problem rather than drowning it in a bag of
> chips. There are no bad foods on WW :-) It really teaches restraint
> and moderation.
> 
> OTOH, a friend of ours keeps touting Atkins as the greatest thing
> since apple pie. He was always putting down WW and said it was a waste
> of money. He rallies on and on about ketosis, but, the fact of the
> matter is, two years later, we met our weight loss goals and he hasn't
> lost a pound. I think WW was money well spent. I'm not bashing Atkins,
> but I think too many people fall into the rah! rah! rah! trap and then
> are not able to follow or commit to their weight-loss plan at all. If
> Atkins works for you, great :-) Different things work for different
> folks.
> 
> Best,
> Christine

It's the same with anything though.  People get all excited about 
exercising, go out and buy home gyms, and a few months later the gyms are 
sitting in a corner with laundry draped over them.  Or someone gets all 
excited about getting married, and a year into it they realize that 
relationships take work, it's not fun all the time.  It's not the specific 
diet plan that one follows, it's the attitude.

-- 
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna

"Ignoramus6554" <ignoramus6554@NOSPAM.6554.invalid> wrote in message
news:booj0a$b7g$1@pita.alt.net...

> Exactly. They want to lose weight and not work at it. Or, they refuse
> to think rationally. We have a couple of people here in
> alt.support.diet who refuse to acknowledge that they have a high
> chance of regaining weight. Believe it or not. One woman was a 300
> pounder a little while ago, lost 51.5% of her weight by drinking
> special diet shakes (good job), and who now gets irate if she is
> reminded that weight maintenance is a struggle and that chances are
> high that she will regain weight if she is not vigilant.

Most people can get past the acknowledgement part, admitting they do have a
problem.  The hardest part, then come, is sacrificing.  The want to go on
diet but they don't want to be devoided of the joy of food.  They want to
work out but they don't work to sweat.  That's why all these fad diets and
excercise methods like the Pilates have a lifespan of three months.  Soon
another effotless diet and excercise method will come to town and people
will go gaga about them.

Case in point, I have seen a lot of people in my gym riding an excericse
bike or working on the treadmill with a headphone on, reading a magazine,
barely breaking a sweat.  That's real cute, maybe the gym should start
serving Pina Colada to them becasue they are really enjoying themselves on
the bikes.  Don't kid yourself, they are not getting anything in return
except an excuse to console their guilty conscience that they did work out
to combat their problems.

It all goes back to the old saying of no pain no gains.  A marathon runner
does not run a marathon race becasue he enjoys it and Lance Armstrong
doesn't have a enjoyable training routine.

When it comes to weigth loss, it's easier than you though but you need
perseverance and will power.  Watch you diet and run the hard miles.  You
need to push yourself to your threshold and then some.  If you are panting
hard at the end of a run, if your body is sore the next day that it feel,
you've done yourself some good.  Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.

In article <bom4r0$2pf$0@pita.alt.net>, john@john.com (Vegetarian) 
wrote:

> In article <ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, JC Der Koenig 
> wrote:
> >> Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is
> >> categorized as obese.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
> > 
> > Idiot.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless muscles is
> doing anything good for his health. 

Typical brain dead vege eater says what? Supply your data for that 
please.

>Having a BMI of 32 is bad.

Incorrect. Supply data please.

> Being
> fat at BMI 32 is horrible,

Only correct thing you have said.

> being muscular at BMI 32 is not that great
> either.

Data please. Your idiotic statements are based on zero knowledge of the 
topic.

> 
> Some dumbo bodybuilders think that by growing muscles, they are doing
> themselves a favor. One needs to only look at their IQ to realize that
> it is not the case and that they are not benefitting. 

Make your parents proud, move out...

> 
> John.

-- 
Will Brink

http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://musclebuildingnutrition.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

In article <wbrink-719D18.13424010112003@news04.east.earthlink.net>, William Brink wrote:
> In article <bom4r0$2pf$0@pita.alt.net>, john@john.com (Vegetarian) 
> wrote:
> 
>> In article <ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, JC Der Koenig 
>> wrote:
>> >> Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is
>> >> categorized as obese.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > 
>> > And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
>> > 
>> > Idiot.
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless muscles is
>> doing anything good for his health. 
> 
> Typical brain dead vege eater says what? Supply your data for that 
> please.

Hey! Watch it!

This topic comes up all the time, so it's worth addressing.  I hope the
following clarifies the issues, especially for those who still believe that
BMI 32 at 12% body fat is "obese". Note the last sentence in results section.

http://www.halls.md/bmi/mort.htm

Title: Differential associations of body mass index and adiposity with all-cause
mortality among men in the first and second National Health and Nutrition
Examination Surveys (NHANES I and NHANES II) follow-up studies

Authors: Allison DB, Zhu SK, Plankey M, FaithMS, Heo M.
Journal: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, Mar 2002;26(3):410-

OBJECTIVE: The frequently observed U-shaped relationship between body mass
index (BMI; kg/m(2)) and mortality rate may be due to the opposing effects of
fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) components of BMI on mortality rate. The
purpose is to test the hypothesis stated above.
...

RESULTS: BMI had a U-shaped relationship with mortality, with a nadir of
approximately 27 kg/m(2). However, when indicators of FM and FFM were added to
the model, the relationship between BMI and mortality became more nearly
monotonic increasing. Moreover, the relationship between FM indicator and
mortality was monotonic increasing and the relationship between FFM indicator
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and mortality was monotonic decreasing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cheers,
-- 
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbqvp7k.bhi.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <wbrink-719D18.13424010112003@news04.east.earthlink.net>,
William Brink wrote:
> > In article <bom4r0$2pf$0@pita.alt.net>, john@john.com (Vegetarian)
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In article <ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, JC Der
Koenig
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which is
> >> >> categorized as obese.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
> >> >
> >> > Idiot.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless muscles is
> >> doing anything good for his health.
> >
> > Typical brain dead vege eater says what? Supply your data for that
> > please.
>
> Hey! Watch it!
>
> This topic comes up all the time, so it's worth addressing.  I hope the
> following clarifies the issues, especially for those who still believe
that
> BMI 32 at 12% body fat is "obese". Note the last sentence in results
section.
>
> http://www.halls.md/bmi/mort.htm
>
> Title: Differential associations of body mass index and adiposity with
all-cause
> mortality among men in the first and second National Health and Nutrition
> Examination Surveys (NHANES I and NHANES II) follow-up studies
>
> Authors: Allison DB, Zhu SK, Plankey M, FaithMS, Heo M.
> Journal: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, Mar 2002;26(3):410-
>
> OBJECTIVE: The frequently observed U-shaped relationship between body mass
> index (BMI; kg/m(2)) and mortality rate may be due to the opposing effects
of
> fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) components of BMI on mortality rate.
The
> purpose is to test the hypothesis stated above.
> ...
>
> RESULTS: BMI had a U-shaped relationship with mortality, with a nadir of
> approximately 27 kg/m(2). However, when indicators of FM and FFM were
added to
> the model, the relationship between BMI and mortality became more nearly
> monotonic increasing. Moreover, the relationship between FM indicator and
> mortality was monotonic increasing and the relationship between FFM
indicator
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and mortality was monotonic decreasing.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

it is an interesting piece of research, but have you actually looked at the
paper, have you seen their indicators of fat mass and fat free mass?

2 skinfolds for FM and upper arm measurement for FFM (becuase everyone
knows, to have lotsa muscle, you gotta have buff arms  :)

plus a whole shit load of statistics

but it doesnt say that theres an increased risk of having massive amounts of
lean mass :)  still being ronnie coleman cant be fun
--
Aaron

In article <3fb08ed2@clear.net.nz>, Aaron wrote:
> 
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbqvp7k.bhi.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
 
> it is an interesting piece of research, but have you actually looked at the
> paper, have you seen their indicators of fat mass and fat free mass?
> 
> 2 skinfolds for FM and upper arm measurement for FFM (becuase everyone
> knows, to have lotsa muscle, you gotta have buff arms  :)

They're just looking for variables that will have good correlation with FM and
FFM. Of course there will be a fair amount of noise (variance unaccounted for
by their measuring techniques) but that's fine as long as (a) you can get enough
inferential power through size of subject pool, and (b) the noise really is
random (not systematic).  My guess is that the researchers wanted to be able
to take the measurements as quickly and unintrusively as possible. Makes it
easier to get permission to proceed with the study, and easier to conduct it.

Cheers,
-- 
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Christine O" <webmaster@gonzo.org> wrote in message
news:56cc9ba7.0311100820.7bc19d60@posting.google.com...
>Different things work for different
> folks.
>

People want a magic cure without having to work at it.  If you just diet and
dont excercise you are doomed from the start.  Cut out all processed foods,
pop/sugar, eat lots of fruit, vege's, meat for proteins and fats, learn the
GI index, excercise, and you will succeed, but it will take time, something
people arent willing to commit to.  If people are too lazy to excercise, do
you really think they can stick with a rigid "diet"?

"Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote in message news:<Xns942E9971B15758ch@127.0.0.1>...
> Vegetarian wrote:
> 
> > JC Der Koenig wrote: 
> >>> Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which
> >>> is categorized as obese.
> >> 
> >> And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese?
> >> 
> >> Idiot.
> > 
> > I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless
> > muscles is doing anything good for his health. Having a BMI
> > of 32 is bad. Being fat at BMI 32 is horrible, being
> > muscular at BMI 32 is not that great either.
> 
> References?  Can you point to any peer-reviewed studies that 
> indicate that "excess" muscle mass raises health risk?  BMI is 
> used as a simple-minded proxy for BF% because, in the broad 
> cross-section of society, people with high BMI have high BF.  
> It is an unwarranted leap to conclude that high BMI with low 
> BF% causes health risk.

I don't have a study, but have seen a reference to the data in a 
well-respected exercise physiology book by Willmore, etc. There is 
probably a reference to such a study there.

> 
> > Some dumbo bodybuilders think that by growing muscles, they
> > are doing themselves a favor. One needs to only look at
> > their IQ to realize that it is not the case and that they
> > are not benefitting. 
> 
> Fascinating.  Please describe the process by which you 
> conflated an interest in hypertropy with a lack of IQ.

Steven C \(Doktersteve\) wrote:
>
> The thing is, the diet has been around for years (what, 30 years?), however
> it is a fad lately, I will agree.

The book was first published in 1972.  It was not the first low carb
book, just the most popular one.

> That is why I asked about how much back to "normal" a person
> gets after the initial phase of Atkins.

Atkins is a *process* not a *menu*, so literally no one can say where that
process will lead you.  The first phase, the first 14 days are menu based.
But OWL starts with increasing your carbs by a system to find your own
unique body's best level to lose.  And maintenance starts with increasing
your carbs again to find another limit set by your own unique body.

Folks can guess what your maintenance phase might look like based on their
own maintenance phase, but that's a guess.  Figure maybe 100 grams per day
with plenty of all sorts of veggies.

But it also depends on what you think "normal" is.  If you think "normal"
is eating the junk food that got you unhappy with your weight, you will
eventually go off the plan and back to your high weight again.  No matter
how you ever lose fat, you need to redefine normal to keep it off.

i hate the attachment of african how about just "black' unless of course 
he/she is african born which i doubt

David Cohen wrote:

> "Robert Schuh" <rob@robschuh.com> wrote
> 
>>Learn the difference between humor and bigotry.
> 
> 
> Q: What do you call an African-American neurosurgeon?
> 
> A: Nigger.
> 
> Hmmm....could be both :)
> 
> David
> 
> 

yea weight watchers hehehehe got a bull dyke lez at work wanting to 
smell my sausage and egg mcmuffin how about sniffing my asshole i said 
all they  talk about is wt watchers it is a cult

Christine O wrote:

>>If you think promoting Atkins makes you competent, you are wrong.  Mad
>>hatter is correct.  You MUST exercise, and you MUST have a proper diet.  It
>>is that simple.  People fail at these fad diets because they are just that,
>>fads.  
> 
> 
> Words of wisdom :-) 
> 
> 
>>Akins maintains a Cult like following, so I am guessing my words will fall
>>on deaf ears.
> 
> 
> That's true of any weight loss plan, really. We went to Weight
> Watchers and lost a combined 70lbs. We reached and exceeded our 10%
> goal and have kept the weight off for over a year. Some WW members
> were pretty fanatical about keeping track of everything, but I don't
> think it's a fault of the program. I guess it is easy to get obsessed
> with what you eat. The group leader was a hoot and it was nice to get
> out and chat with other people trying to lose weight. We don't go
> anymore because we don't need the support so much. WW was really
> eye-opening and it was mostly about changing behaviour - like finding
> something to do if you're bored instead of eating, or find another way
> to deal with a personal problem rather than drowning it in a bag of
> chips. There are no bad foods on WW :-) It really teaches restraint
> and moderation.
> 
> OTOH, a friend of ours keeps touting Atkins as the greatest thing
> since apple pie. He was always putting down WW and said it was a waste
> of money. He rallies on and on about ketosis, but, the fact of the
> matter is, two years later, we met our weight loss goals and he hasn't
> lost a pound. I think WW was money well spent. I'm not bashing Atkins,
> but I think too many people fall into the rah! rah! rah! trap and then
> are not able to follow or commit to their weight-loss plan at all. If
> Atkins works for you, great :-) Different things work for different
> folks.
> 
> Best,
> Christine

In calgary.general cory <justme@nowhere.com> wrote:

> People want a magic cure without having to work at it.  If you just diet and
> dont excercise you are doomed from the start.  

Likewise, if you just excercise, but don't watch what you eat - which is my
problem.  

I recognize now that proper health is a combination of the two.  (Not that I
actually adhere to that, tho).



-- 
.............................................................................

Chase after truth like hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never
touch its coat-tails.
                                                           -Clarence Darrow

.............................................................................
dswan@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com                        http://www.memeticcandiru.com

Steven C \(Doktersteve\) wrote:
>
> In the first phase of Atkins, you are stuck at less than 30 grams of carbs a
> day.

In the first 14 days you get as close to 20 as you can without going over.

> Obviously you want to cut out the empty carbs like glucose-fructose and
> white sugars, and replace them with complete complex sugars, but how many
> carbs do you cut out?

Atkins is a process not a menu.  It's a process to answer that question
for you, in fact.

But that means that no one can answer it for *you*.  Folks can only answer
for themselves or give reported averages.  Form that the best you can do is
guess.

So for me: My CCLL is 50ish, my CCLM is 100ish.  Those are common numbers.
To lose I need to stay under 50 in ketosis.  To maintain I need to stay
between 50 and 100 grams per day.

But CCLLs range from 15 to 150.  The only way to find out for yourself is
to follow the process and see what your body's own unique characteristics
take you.

Ghandi "Thee Asshole" Sarl <domeny@tlen.pl> wrote:

> >>is that simple.  People fail at these fad diets because they are just that,
> >>fads.

30 year fad ... interesting concept

-- 
Kitty =^..^=
168/159/130 - November Goal 155
17 September 03

It's great that you realize you need to get into shape. Unfortunately 
you can't just get on a diet and expect to loose weight then go back on 
your merry way and eat the same things you ate before. The word "diet" 
refers to the way one eats and does not mean to do a session of limiting 
certain food groups etc.

If you want want to follow a certain system because you believe that it 
is the right thing to do and it works for you do it. But there is no 
short term solution. There are many variants of low carb type of diets 
out there but they should be part of your lifestyle along with proper 
exercising, which should include cardiovascular as well as weigh bearing 
  routines.

As it has been already pointed out, eat a healthy balanced diet. Unless 
you have bodybuilding goals, it really doesn't matter what system you 
follow as long as your calorie intake is less than what your body burns. 
  Start writing down what you eat all day, and add up the calories. You 
can use www.fitday.com for this as well.

Eat 6 small meals a day, which will also increase your metabolism. Lift 
weights as more muscle mass will use more calories. Add some cardio 
(running, biking etc.) which will also use more calories, and there you 
have it. Follow this for life and you will be set.

If you need more motivation check out Dave Draper's web site. He also 
has a weekly newsletter that should help you to whip you in shape.
http://davedraper.com/draper-newsletter.html

Good luck,
  Zsolt

Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote:
> "MadRedHatter" <mee@mee.com> wrote in message
> news:Ydhrb.346965$6C4.158687@pd7tw1no...
> 
>>"Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Wbhrb.6788$jy.3697@clgrps13...
>>
>>>Oh man... here I am again considering trying the Atkins diet.
>>
>>Or hey .. how about doing this ..
>>
>>Eat sensibly. Exercise regularly. Burn more calories then you take in.
>>
>>Why fall for the fad diet de jour?
>>
>>
> 
> 
> The thing is, the diet has been around for years (what, 30 years?), however
> it is a fad lately, I will agree.
> There are so many other "low carb" diets out there (Suzanne sommers has even
> gotten in on it), and so many claim that it works.
> Actually, I knew someone in Minnesota who managed to loose 45 lbs on it, but
> he was actually considered very large (like 250 lbs).
> 
> anyhow, as I said in my post, I tried that diet, and eventually hit my wall.
> I hit it pretty fast actually, after loosing only 15 lbs, I found it hard to
> increase my cardio workout time to 2 hours plus just to continue to see
> results.
> I am not a skinny person by default, but I as I mentioned, not flabby fat.
> so the best I can hope for is to shed the fat which is there and then build
> muscle, lead a healthier lifestyle (exercise, eat right), and keep the
> weight off. That is why I asked about how much back to "normal" a person
> gets after the initial phase of Atkins.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 

revek <tanirevek@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Studies suggest that fiber helps reduce the occurence of colon-rectal
> cancer.  If Atkins done correctly means lots of fiber, then that would
> suggest that Atkins could be a viable strategy against colon-rectal
> cancer.

Fiber as prevention was only a theory, and it has not panned out.
See the two attached articles.

After Induction, Atkins allows ample high fiber vegetables, a little of
fibrous fruits, and nuts.  When one is getting most of their allowed carbs
on Atkins from veggies and nuts, and not eating a lot of LC-engineered
products, there is a lot less waste than on a high carb diet.  It is
also of a consistency that is more easily pushed through the tract than
the high volume of pasty waste from a high carb diet.  The standard
recommendations of daily fiber might be overstated for a low-carb diet.

I've always gotten most of my carbs from veggies and nuts, and in more
than six years on Atkins, can count on one hand the number of times
I became constipated.

Also, a lot of newbies confuse needing to go less often than on a high
carb diet with constipation.  Constipation means difficult or painful
elimination.  "Daily regularity" is a phrase that was made up to sell
laxatives.  According to various gastroenterology sites, normal bowel
function varies anywhere from 3 times a day to 3 times a week.



October 12, 2000
Study: Fiber Doesn't Prevent Cancer

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:02 p.m. ET

LONDON (AP) -- Evidence is mounting that fiber might not prevent colon
cancer after all, with a new study suggesting that one type of
supplement might even be bad for the colon.

The theory that a high-fiber diet wards off the second-leading cancer
killer has been around since the 1970s, but the evidence was never
strong. The concept began to crumble last year when the first of three
major U.S. studies found it had no effect.

In the latest study, published this week in The Lancet medical journal,
European researchers found that precancerous growths, or polyps, were
slightly more likely to recur in those taking a certain fiber
supplement.

The findings demonstrate the difficulty of trying to figure out the
relationship between nutrition and disease, said Dr. Michael Thun, who
heads epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society.

Fiber is particularly complicated, he said, because there are various
types and they all could act differently.

``The concept of a healthy diet continues to be the recommendation for
overall health,'' Thun said. ``But the painful process of clarifying
which ingredients in food do what will take us decades to sort out.''

Thun said the American Cancer Society will revisit its recommendations
on fiber and colon cancer in light of the growing body of evidence
eroding support for the theory that it wards off the disease.

Experts recommend a low fat, high-fiber diet rich in fruits and
vegetables and whole grains because it has been shown to reduce the
risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and some other
cancers.

``There is definitely something dietary going on with bowel cancer, but
we haven't really been able to fix on what it is,'' said Dr. Tim Key, a
cancer researcher at Oxford University who was not connected with the
study. ``The cause of colorectal cancer is very far from understood.''

The latest study, conducted by scientists at the University of
Bourgogne, France, does not address the effect of a high-fiber diet,
but of supplements of one type of fiber -- ispaghula husk, a compound
similar to psyllium that is not part of the average diet.

Psyllium, a grain grown in India, is found in some over-the-counter
laxatives and fiber supplements.

The study, involving 552 Europeans who previously had precancerous
growths in the bowel, found that 29 percent of those receiving the
supplement got at least one new tumor within three years. That compares
with 20 percent of those given fake granules.

The findings may or may not be related to the role fiber in general
plays in bowel cancer but, considered together with other recent
studies, the plausibility of a protective role looks less likely.

``This does produce more evidence for the negative side,'' said Dr.
Lesley Walker, a scientist at the London-based Imperial Cancer Research
Fund, which was not connected to the research.

``But we still haven't got the totality of the evidence we want,''
Walker said. ``There are still some important ongoing studies under way
on the fiber question that should give us some solid answers.''

Sorting out the influence of genes, food, pollutants, living habits and
other factors requires drawing together information from many different
scientific approaches. Those include lab experiments, rat studies,
observations of large groups of people and human experiments.

Information from all of these kinds of science went into the rise and
fall of the idea that fiber prevents colon cancer.

It started when scientists noticed that Westerners get more colon
cancer than poor people in rural Africa. While the differences between
these two populations are too numerous to count, an obvious one was the
Africans' higher consumption of fiber.

Over time, many lines of evidence seemed to support the theory.

People see their risk of colon cancer rise when they move from places
with low rates to areas where it's more common and they adopt the local
eating habits.

Furthermore, the idea made sense. Fiber makes the stool bulkier and
perhaps more likely to dilute cancer-causing substances. It also causes
them to flow more quickly through the digestive system.

The data seemed convincing enough for health agencies to recommend high-
fiber foods as one way of preventing colon cancer.

Then last year, the first major study putting the theory to the test,
in which researchers based at Harvard School of Public Health studied
88,757 nurses for 16 years, concluded fiber doesn't help.

---end article--

from http://www.upmc.edu/newsbureau/science/vatstudy.htm

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
RESEARCHERS DEMONSTRATE METABOLIC LINK BETWEEN LARGE
WAISTS AND COLORECTAL CANCER

PITTSBURGH, July 15, 1999 -- People with large waistlines
suffer metabolic changes that significantly predispose them to
developing colorectal cancer, according to new data from a
University of Pittsburgh-led study whose results are published in the
July 7 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. This
information is the first to link intra-abdominal fat, or visceral adipose
tissue (VAT), and its associated metabolic changes with colorectal
cancer, according to the authors.

"For several years, scientists have recognized that obese people are
more likely to develop colorectal cancer. Our study sheds light on
the metabolic process underlying this connection," said Robert
Schoen, M.D., assistant professor of medicine at the University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine, where he is the medical director of
the Center for Families at Risk for Colorectal Cancer. "The
metabolic parameters we measured, including glucose, insulin and
waist circumference, reveal a risk of colorectal cancer that equals or
exceeds other known risk factors, such as having a first-degree
relative with this disease or consuming a high-fat or low-fiber diet."

The current report is based on a study of 5,849 people age 65 and
older who participated in the Cardiovascular Health Study, a
multi-center observational study of risk factors for coronary heart
disease and stroke. The researchers found that people with increased
waistlines, high levels of glucose (the sugar needed to fuel the body's
activities) and high levels of insulin (the hormone that helps dispose
of glucose) were twice as likely to develop colorectal cancer as
individuals without these characteristics. Individuals in the study who
developed colorectal cancer did not differ from their non-affected
counterparts in terms of smoking, current aspirin use, alcoholic
drinks consumed per week, percent of fat calories in diet or mean
number of vegetable or fruit servings per week. Study participants
were followed for an average 6.5 years.

"A very important finding here is that people with increased amounts
of abdominal obesity, or VAT, do not need to be diabetic to develop
colorectal cancer," remarked Lewis Kuller, M.D., Dr.P.H.,
chairman of the department of epidemiology at the University of
Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health and study
co-investigator. "Nondiabetics appear to have an elevated risk of
colorectal cancer as their fasting insulin and glucose rise, even if
glucose levels do not reach those defined as consistent with
diabetes." 

Previous studies have shown that insulin and insulin-like growth
factors (IGFs) stimulate the growth of colorectal cancers. Obesity
appears to decrease the production of proteins that bind with
circulating IGFs, thus exposing the body to higher concentrations of
these substances. More research is needed to clarify the roles VAT,
insulin, IGF and IGF-binding factors play in causing colorectal
cancer, according to the investigators.

Other researchers on the federally funded study include Catherine
M. Tangen, Ph.D., department of biostatistics, University of
Washington, Seattle; Gregory L. Burke, M.D., department of public
health and sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
Winston-Salem, N.C.; Mary Cushman, M.D., departments of
medicine and pathology, University of Vermont, Burlington; Russell
P. Tracy, Ph.D., departments of medicine, pathology and
biochemistry, University of Vermont; Adrian Dobs, M.D.,
department of medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Md.; and Peter J. Savage, M.D., National Heart, Lung and Blood
Institute, Bethesda, Md.

---end article---


-- 
  jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

  		"There's a seeker born every minute."

go to atkin.com and they will tell u all the info u need and u can ask them
any question u want and they will answer i found this web site by mistake
last night and it gave ideas to do while on weight watchers. if u can stick
to it from what i read on the web site it does work.
check out the site.
angie
"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7960d3ee.0311120827.623855d8@posting.google.com...
> Steven C \(Doktersteve\) wrote:
> >
> > In the first phase of Atkins, you are stuck at less than 30 grams of
carbs a
> > day.
>
> In the first 14 days you get as close to 20 as you can without going over.
>
> > Obviously you want to cut out the empty carbs like glucose-fructose and
> > white sugars, and replace them with complete complex sugars, but how
many
> > carbs do you cut out?
>
> Atkins is a process not a menu.  It's a process to answer that question
> for you, in fact.
>
> But that means that no one can answer it for *you*.  Folks can only answer
> for themselves or give reported averages.  Form that the best you can do
is
> guess.
>
> So for me: My CCLL is 50ish, my CCLM is 100ish.  Those are common numbers.
> To lose I need to stay under 50 in ketosis.  To maintain I need to stay
> between 50 and 100 grams per day.
>
> But CCLLs range from 15 to 150.  The only way to find out for yourself is
> to follow the process and see what your body's own unique characteristics
> take you.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I WOULD NOT do the Atkins diet again. There is no reason to but your body
through a state of ketosis which is ABNORMAL. There is no reason to reduce
your intake of complex carbs either...only the simple ones. If you are
exercising, you NEED carbs.

I would first like to ask you a few simple questions:

1. How many calories do you consume daily and be honest about it?

2. When you tried a "low fat diet," how low did you go i.e. was it truely
low fat? The reason I ask is because the FDA standard low fat diet of 60g a
day is not low enough.

3. What is your fiber intake like? Are you getting at least 30g a day?

4. How do you exercise?

If you are 5 feet 6 inches and weigh 190, you are obese my friend. You
should weight closer to 140 give or take 10 pounds. Your waist line
shouldn't be more 32 inches.

I am a similar height as you. I have a 30 inch waist and a six pack stomach.
I eat sensibly and workout to have a fuel burning machine body. As a result,
I can eat those pancakes and not gain a pound.

I run a weight loss support group you might wanna visit. Click on the
"Links" section to read important articles to losing weight.

Trent


-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join now @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weightloss_health
 

> From: "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: 
> alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.su
> pport.diet.low-fat,calgary.general
> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:59:18 GMT
> Subject: Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
> 
> Oh man... here I am again considering trying the Atkins diet.
> Lol, years ago I got the newest version of the book, and I tried to do it. I
> guess I did not have the willpower to get past that first real carb craving
> week that the book said I would experience, and I crashed, ended up eating
> pancakes on a Sunday morning, and said "Atkins sucks".
> 
> The second time I tried the diet, I was dumb and did it with too much high
> carb/sugar foods in the house.
> I crashed, and blamed the Atkins diet. In retrospect, it may have been the
> fact that at the time I was working a strenuous job and not getting enough
> sleep, and generally not taking care of myself. It was also in the middle of
> a hard time for me when I was experiencing some self loathing and depression
> (more than is usual for a negative type guy like me).
> 
> So I am considering it again.
> I am not fat. I have weight I don't want, but am not a "large" person. I am
> five foot 6 inches and weigh about 190 lbs, however alot of that is muscle I
> suspect, because my waist is 36, which isn't HUGE, but isn't skinny.
> I want to loose some weight, and get alot of the refined sugars out of my
> diet, as I have been a sugar junkie so long, and I don't really feel like
> developing type 2 diabetes in my life...
> 
> But there seem to be roadblocks.
> The Atkins diet seems to me in some ways like a clever scheme to sell
> specialized foods from their website, and now through GNC stores.
> You need to cut SO MANY carbs out of the diet to go into ketosis, that it
> seems to me that you will end up spending lots on the high fatty foods that
> are required whilst in the first few weeks (or months) of the program.
> Meats, cheese, eggs, these are all things which are actually more expensive
> than the highly processed foods that we are used to eating as a society. I
> guess that you have to ask yourself whether you can put a pricetag on your
> health though, right?
> 
> Can I drink diet soda while on Atkins? For some reason, Atkins himself seems
> to act as if aspartame is the devil, and will impede your weight loss.
> I question why an additive developed for diabetics and people on diet's
> would deter people from loosing weight.
> Of course, Atkins also conveniently sells products with the Splenda type of
> sweetener in them (cant recall the non brand name atm).
> 
> How much back to "normal" (breads and other carbs) will I get back to after
> I have lost my initial weight? I have a goal to have flat abs, to be honest,
> as well as feel more energetic and the like.
> So yeah, I have lots of questions, and I would appreciate it very much of
> someone could shed some light on my queries.
> 
> I have tried low calorie/low fat/lots of exercise diets in the past with
> MARGINAL success. In total I lost about 15 lbs before I found I had to
> increase my cardio workout substantially. I don't drive a car, I take
> transit and walk all over the place.
> Its not as if I am suffering from the suburbanite syndrome of driving
> everywhere and anywhere.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>