Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Food Forum' started by Roro, Jan 5, 2004.
Anyone try one yet? 11 net grams isnt bad. But will it actually fill you up?
The last time I went to a Subway to try one of their "low fat" sandwiches I quickly realized how they can make them that way.
The sandwich was about 3" long, had very little content, and was gone in 3-4 bites.
I could have eaten four of them.
I don't know how long ago this was, but today you can actually get a pretty good sandwich which is low fat. Many of the 6 inch sandwiches are below 8 grams of fat. Granted you can't get cheese or regular mayo on them, but still not a bad sandwich. They have gotten much better over the years. I could be wrong, but I think they may be a little cheaper than years ago. They also have a much larger selection and new bread selections too.
I don't know about the Atkins items. I did see a lady getting one and she asked for mayo, ranch, and mustard on it---I don't know about that combination. It did look a little small though.
I had one Saturday. It's basically any 6" sub wrapped in a "low-carb" tortilla (instead of bread). Not bad but not a very large helping of meat. Didn't fill me up.
I thought with Atkins you could have all the fat you could eat - it's the carbs they cut out.
I wouldn't say "all the fat you can eat" on Atkins. There's a huge difference between "low-fat" and "low-carb" foods. On Atkins, you can eat more foods with higher fat content but too much of even a good thing isn't good.
As long as it's not low fat mayo, that's a perfect combination.
The wraps aren't Induction-friendly, but not a bad choice for someone near or on Maintenance.
In general, "Low fat" = HIGH carbs & LOW taste. They put in lots of sugar to make up for NO flavor.
more or less, yeah. one of the nice things about Atkins is you never really get the feeling that you're "starving," because your blood sugar is so constant.
another thing i noticed after a few days is i sometimes had to remind myself to eat...appetite goes down BIG time.
The Atkins diet, like most fad diets are a joke. Its hard on your kidneys and with no carbs creates sugar crashes within the body, plus the all you can eat fat theory is ridiculous. (try running that one by a cardiologist) They seriously need to start teaching nutrition and diatetics at an early age.
How long is it before it stops being a fad? 30 years long enough?
It's not hard on the kidneys. Suddenly increasing your protein when you already have renal problems is not a good idea (and clearly and emphatically stated in the book) but Atkins does not *cause* kidney failure.
It's also not a *no* carb diet. And carbohydrates cause the release of insulin, which leads to low blood sugar. (Well, in large amounts, so do proteins, but never fat.)
It's also not an 'all you can eat' diet. You eat until you're *satisified*, not stuffed. That's reiterated several times in the book.
Dr. Atkins *was* a cardiologist.
I kinda get the feeling you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
What she said!
I have to agree with you Laura. Most people who are anti atkins have never read the book. I have been on Atkins for a bout a year now and I have went from 250 to 190 and holding. I have been visiting the doc regularly for checks ups and he is very impressed with my result. Even the blood work he did showed a HUGE drop in my Cholesterol (sp). I would imagine if my kidneys were getting pounded, the blood work would show that.
Atkins (at least for me) has been the easiest and surest way of keeping wieght off.
I've seen a few posts criticizing Atkins where the person had NO IDEA what they were taking about,
but yours is way up there with the worst of them!
If I don't know what I'm talking about then I guess I'd better drop out of med school and trash my Zoology/Biomedical Science degree. I'd love to discuss several aspects of diatetics, metabolism, glucogenesis, kreb cycles, gycolysis.... take your pick. I'm your Huckleberry...
First of all I never said anything about renal failure. I said its hard on your kidneys. Its a fact that meat proteins are harder to breakdown than dairy proteins for instance. The increase in the amount of protein consumed in the diet, especially from meat and dairy products, raises the levels of uric acid and urea in the blood. These are toxic by-products of protein breakdown and metabolism. The body eliminates this uric acid and urea by pumping lots of water into the kidneys and urinary tract to help it flush out. However, a detrimental side effect of this diuretic response is the loss of essential minerals from the body, including calcium.
If you care to pursue this discussion... please provide SCIENTIFIC evidence that elevated protein levels do not stress kidneys and do not cause some sort of water(majority of initial weight loss) and essential trace mineral loss.
Point is.. there are several arguments for pros and cons of this ridiculous diet. The American Cancer society, American Heart Association, Bassett Research Institute (one of the leading obesity research institutions in the U.S.) do not approve of these diets. I'll take this 7 ways till sunday over the opinion of one cardiologist's outdated theory.
oh and as far as this comment goes... I could sit here and relay remedial insults to your intelligence as you did to me and it would get me nowhere, however could you explain this statement? I really don't think you have a grasp of this relationship beyond a quick google search or Atkins book. I'll give you a little hint though... as blood glucose levels fall... so does insulin levels secreted by the pancreas. If you are going to TRY to discuss insulin on a remedial level.. discuss glucagon.. you know.. the opposite of insulin, the hormone release when blood sugar levels are TOO low from a no carb diet. Glucagon induces the liver to make glucose from certain essential proteins in our body. Yes I'm sure this is quite healthy, but by all means... please explain how I have "no idea what the hell I'm talking about".
I knew I'd step on a few egos here. Sorry... but if you care to discuss why I'm wrong scientifically, instead of opinion then by all means proceed, i.e... don't be simplistic and say I have no idea about what I'm talking about. Please explain how and why, what I said is wrong.
Actually the studies show that perhaps people with Kidney dmage may do better on a low protein diet, that is a far cry from studies that show a causal link with kidney damage.
As far as anecdotal evidence, Paul Anderson had kidney problems(brights disease) as a child and was in general a sickly child. It was only when his parents put him on a high protein diet(alot of raw meat too, some of the **** he would eat was quite disgusting to be honest. Raw meat shakes for example) that his health improved. His kidneys lasted over 40 years on that high protein diet before he eventually needed a transplant. And considering that he originally had brights disease I think that is quite a testimony.
As far as fads, if it works, it ain't a fad. And further it(or soemthing quite similar) has been done for thousands of years. Ask Inuits about their low carbohydrate and high fat diet. The inuits have only been eating that way for a few thousand years. They are not doing it for weightloss, they eat that way just because most of the food sources are animal up there. Very little plantlife up north.
I think the main reason people reacted negative towards you on this thread is you make sweeping pronouncements in a know-it-all manner. That is typical of students, less so of masters of their craft. I once went to a doctor who said that I knew best how to rehab my back because of my strength training experience. You don't have to know everything, and keeping and open mind will help you learn and mature in your craft.
Hmmm... Ok.. well John Hopkins and the American Journal of Medicine would disagree for starters. Fair enough.. once again, I'll take that over opinion any day of the week.
I really don't understand the point here. Are you comparing the iniut's diet (high in omega 3-6-9s) to a possible high fat diet for the american public?? Stomach stapling works.... is it a fad? Is it a long term behavior towards better health?
I stated my opinion. I don't see how this is "know it all". When insulted remedially I respond and explained my background since it was discredited.
That's great. I had the same experience when I was 17 after being hit by a drunk driver. Had severe back pain for over a year and my weight training was the only thing that relieved it.
Is this a message from Tony Robbins? or are you saying I have a closed mind/am immature in my "craft" because I disagree with the Atkins diet based on several courses/areas studied? How ironic.
Admittedly, it's been a few years since I was in school, but has the scientific method changed so much as to permit proving a negative?
Ooowwww, med school.... I stand corrected. Anyone who can make it *in* to med school obviously knows what they're talking about. Automatically. Don't get me started on mistakes that actual doctors make.
You don't know what you're talking about because you haven't read the book and you don't know what the diet entails. It's not no carb, which you've stated at least twice. It's not high protein, which you seem to be stuck on. And if Dr. Atkin's status as a cardiologist doesn't stack up to your *STUDENT* status, then no one's ever going to convince you of anything.
Gee, I don't have any *proof*, but it seems to me that being obese would be kinda hard on the body, too. And I didn't increase the amount of meat I ate when I started this way of eating a year ago. And my blood tests show that my kidneys are still functioning fine. Oh, and my glucose and triglycerides have improved quite a bit.
The high carb diet you're so enamored of is what caused me to get fat in the first place. It's what kept me fat for so many years. This horrible fad diet has allowed me to quit all my asthma meds and I don't have the unstable blood sugar as I did before. And my kidneys are just fine, thank you very much. That is, unless you don't trust my doctor to be able to tell.
IF you had read the book, you would have seen that Dr. Atkins recommends supplementation, especially during the Induction phase. He was well aware of the flushing of those essential minerals and the fact that the Induction menu didn't allow for their replacement. Again, IF you'd read the book, you would have seen that Induction is only two weeks, after which foods are added back in a controlled manner.
Two problems - I didn't say it didn't cause water loss and I didn't say that Atkins was a high protein diet. In fact, protein only comprises about 30% of ones caloric intake.
You're the one who's stuck on high protein, not me.
I eat better on Atkins than I did with low calorie, low fat. Fresh foods, very little processed crap, way more veggies. I suppose you think that frozen dinners are a good alternative to nutritious home cooked meals?
It's so ridiculous that after being around for 30 years, millions are flocking to it and losing weight successfully AND KEEPING IT OFF.
Do you have any experience with this plan at all? or are you letting someone else think for you?
"relay remedial insults to my intelligence"? Interesting use of the word relay. But whatever.
Perhaps we can agree that ingesting carbohydrates results in the production of insulin? Well, ingesting large amounts of protein does the same thing. However, no amount of ingested fat will result in the production of insulin.
Perhaps you're familiar with the results of chronically high levels of insulin? If not, look it up. But that's what a high carb diet gives you. A high fat diet stabilizes your blood sugar.
And the body is quite capable of using ketones for fuel. It's not unnatural and it's not bad. Perhaps you'd like to argue with Mother Nature, as well?
Sure, you can use bigger words than I can, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. Read the book or shut the **** up.