Carbs are high in calories so following a low calorie diet makes sense to cut the carbs. Also if you are diabetic you have to cut them anyway.
Several reasons low carb eating works for weight loss and it's not a gimmick it works neither is it that restrictive. 1lb a week isn't a bad weight loss each week all serious dieticians don't recommend losing much more per week as it is not sustainable in the long run.
its not as simple as carbs are high in calories. You need to look at GI index as well. Simple carbs like bread, pasta and processed food are very easy for the body to break down and convert to sugar which eventually is stored as fat.
Eat low GI carbs like whole grains, brown rice and beans and you won't get a sugar spike and leaving you hungry again in a hour.
Following the glycemic index is bad advice for diabetics, imo. The biggest thing that determines a sugar spike is the number of carbohydrates you eat, not the source.
Following the glycemic index is bad advice for diabetics, imo. The biggest thing that determines a sugar spike is the number of carbohydrates you eat, not the source.
I have definitely found that to be true. Doesn't matter if it's pure sugar or wholemeal bread both affect me.
Not sure if it's just me either but I find them both quite depressive if I eat too much (for me) of any carbs I get much more down than if I don't eat them.
Following the glycemic index is bad advice for diabetics, imo. The biggest thing that determines a sugar spike is the number of carbohydrates you eat, not the source.
But wouldn't you have to eat quite high GI food to get enough carbs in one sitting for sugar spike ?
e.g according to Google, 1 slice of multigrain bread has 18grams of carbs but to get that from Broccoli you'd have to eat 260grams or with lettuce you'd have to eat over 600 grams.
I have definitely found that to be true. Doesn't matter if it's pure sugar or wholemeal bread both affect me.
Not sure if it's just me either but I find them both quite depressive if I eat too much (for me) of any carbs I get much more down than if I don't eat them.
The Glycemic Index was devised in a lab setting, using healthy subjects to test individual foods against a control, like pure glucose or white bread. It measures 50 grams of carbohydrate per each food meaning you would have to eat something like 500 grams of carrots achieve its full, purportedly high, GI score, which of course varies wildly depending on if they're raw, cooked, how they were cooked, the variety, the human subject and who conducted the test. Completely impractical to the way most people eat. And rarely do we eat foods in isolation, so the moment you combine one food with another you change its GI. Basically, all you have to do is add fat to a food to lower its GI.
If someone really needs a tool to help them make better food choices, then I'd say Glycemic Load is a better metric, as it at least takes into account the number of carbs... but since you need to factor in the GI score of a food, it still has its limitations.
I don't know. It might have it's uses for people without metabolic disorders, but I eat to my glucose meter, and I've been thwarted time and time again by so-called healthy, low GI grains. Carb counting is what really lowers HbA1Cs.
Following the glycemic index is bad advice for diabetics, imo. The biggest thing that determines a sugar spike is the number of carbohydrates you eat, not the source.
Sorry, my comment was in relation to the first line, not on diabetic bit.
Fair enough! ^^ I have to say, I'm really not sold on whole grains being so much better than refined grains, or GI eating as a concept. A flour tortilla, for instance, has a low score of 30 compared to a slice of wholemeal bread with a score of 70. Converted white rice (Uncle Bens) has a lower GI than regular brown rice. Hell, even table sugar has a lower GI than the bread. So which is going to sate the average person longer, and which is the overall healthier choice? Clearly it's the lard in a typical flour tortilla which is more effective at slowing gastric emptying than whole grains. I'm not dismissive of whole grain carbs, but IMO it's protein and fat that satisfy us for longer.
And regarding sugar spikes and crashes, would a healthy person really feel the effects of normal blood sugar regulation? Something about that doesn't ring true.
OP - I've lost three stone in the past year on an 'eat less move more' principle diet. With an underactive thyroid, one of the traditional 'boohoo I can't lose weight no matter what I do' excuses. I'm afraid the bottom line really is that some people can eat more 'nice' things without putting on weight, whilst others have to accept that their bodies are configured in a much crapper way which means they really have to be stringent about what they put in vs their output.
In my case I've just adapted to diligently measuring how my body responds to what I put in. My basic philosophy is that if something's not 'natural', it's probably going to have more of an impact on my weight. I do weigh everyday - which I know plenty would not advocate - but for me personally, keeping a track of weight creeping up is the best kickstarter for thinking about what might have contributed to that and then scaling back for a couple of days to restore the balance.
That said, in all that time I've not given a second thought to factors such as what are 'sins', and what's protein vs particularly what's 'carbs'; God it makes my teeth nash the way the word carbohydrate has been turned into that 'buzzphrase' by the weight-loss industry. My secret was (is!) realising - accepting, I think that's the 'keyword' if there is one - that I was just eating too much, and too large a proportion of that being 'treats', no matter how much I convinced myself my diet was basically healthy. I still love fish & chips, pizza, alcohol & co - as much as I ever did - just without any such frequency as I'd convinced myself was 'alright' and that there must have been some other reason I was podgy whilst munching on otherwise nutritional foodstuffs most of the time.
But within that there is good 'ready meal' stuff out there that helps to ensure you're getting adequate calories and nutrition. Innocent Veg pots are good for work lunches, as are Covent Garden soups - I tend to stock up on them from the 'gone off' aisle in Sainsburys, which is my first stop every time I pop in Food Doctor bulgar wheat/lentil pots are also great - you can add so much low-cal chopped stuff to jazz them up like celery, fennel etc - they're like, sorry to be snobby, 'upper class' pot noodles. Sainsbury's also have their own 'My Goodness' ready meal range a lot of which sits agreeably within the 300-something calorie bracket.
All this talk of food, but I do make sure I move more too. There's a conveniently mean hill a couple of minutes' walk away from the office, which I've got into the habit of doing at least once every lunchtime. Then there's also walking to town to get ingredients for my weekend treat 'from scratch' cooking of curries, risottos etc instead of going in the car. Two other things have worked for me - sorry to be graphic, but pooing is very important - and prune juice really does do the trick, I honestly don't know why more people aren't sold on that. In my case also, but I realise this isn't for everyone - adding chillies to stuff (seeds intact) does seem to have a positive effect metabolically.
Fair enough! ^^ I have to say, I'm really not sold on whole grains being so much better than refined grains, or GI eating as a concept. A flour tortilla, for instance, has a low score of 30 compared to a slice of wholemeal bread with a score of 70. Converted white rice (Uncle Bens) has a lower GI than regular brown rice. Hell, even table sugar has a lower GI than the bread. So which is going to sate the average person longer, and which is the overall healthier choice? Clearly it's the lard in a typical flour tortilla which is more effective at slowing gastric emptying than whole grains. I'm not dismissive of whole grain carbs, but IMO it's protein and fat that satisfy us for longer.
And regarding sugar spikes and crashes, would a healthy person really feel the effects of normal blood sugar regulation? Something about that doesn't ring true.
I don't know about all the science behind it all and I can only speak to what works for me, I find whole grains/whole meal breads far more satisfying than white, I can have one slice with my eggs and feel perfectly well until about 1pm when I have lunch. Have two slices of white with the same amount of eggs and I get cravings for carbs well before midday.
I don't know if it's just in my mind even - could be I admit.
I don't know about all the science behind it all and I can only speak to what works for me, I find whole grains/whole meal breads far more satisfying than white, I can have one slice with my eggs and feel perfectly well until about 1pm when I have lunch. Have two slices of white with the same amount of eggs and I get cravings for carbs well before midday.
I don't know if it's just in my mind even - could be I admit.
Yep, as you say, we're all different. I doubt it's all in your head-- fibre definitely has its advantages-- but even if it were, I think anything that gives you a psychological edge and keeps you on the right path is perfectly valid.
Beyond the psychological factor, I just don't see point of basing a diet on a GI chart, especially as no two charts are alike, as the results in these tests are rough to the point they are not even reproducible.
Yes TBH I have based my life now on what works for me I speak about it as it might work for others as it has stopped my cravings for sugar and I am having success losing weight, I am however not claiming it will work for others or is some sort of miracle.
I just don't like seeing others rubbish it as a fad that cannot work, or claim they have the magic that works for everyone either.
I also like an uncomplicated approach I do weigh some foods just to find what a proper portion size and I count calories but that is all. If I eat too much fat etc as long as it is within my calorie limit I no longer worry about it as I have found I need fats in my diet to stop my skin getting horribly dry and my hair getting very dry. Doesn't seem to matter if the fat is so called healthy ones or batter and cheese it's the fact it is fat that makes the difference to my skin.
NO not the atkins at all, I eat loads of vegetables and don't go crazy on fat and calorific foods very unlike the atkins where you have cream and loads of meat etc.
Funny how I also eat Atkins WOE and I eat a ton of veggies as well... Its a high fat, "medium protein" and low carb. I always stay on induction and am now Keto adapted.The difference in my life is outstanding.
Nothing at all wrong in having cream (in moderation) and fat is very very good for you. Fat as in coconut oil, butter, ghee, dripping,lard etc. My body burns fat off at the rate of knots and not once have I done any exercise. Although I am now out into my garden most days digging and other things that I never thought I would do again.
I am never hungry, never have cravings and have not had one nap since last summer. I have so much energy its amazing, no depression or down days whatsoever... all my family and friends cannot believe it, as I was so desperately ill for a long time.
Funny how I also eat Atkins WOE and I eat a ton of veggies as well... Its a high fat, "medium protein" and low carb. I always stay on induction and am now Keto adapted.The difference in my life is outstanding.
Nothing at all wrong in having cream (in moderation) and fat is very very good for you. Fat as in coconut oil, butter, ghee, dripping,lard etc. My body burns fat off at the rate of knots and not once have I done any exercise. Although I am now out into my garden most days digging and other things that I never thought I would do again.
I am never hungry, never have cravings and have not had one nap since last summer. I have so much energy its amazing, no depression or down days whatsoever... all my family and friends cannot believe it, as I was so desperately ill for a long time.
Atkins must have changed is all I can say, when my husband did it when it first became popular you were cautioned against vegetables and fruit and had to eat protein and fats only. Made a lot of people very ill.
Atkins must have changed is all I can say, when my husband did it when it first became popular you were cautioned against vegetables and fruit and had to eat protein and fats only. Made a lot of people very ill.
Sorry but that is absolute rubbish. I have Atkins first books and videos and nowhere does it even hint at this! Like a lot of people you have either read the book wrong or read a bad copy of the book in a newspaper/magazine.. There was all kinds of rubbish sprouted in the newspapers about his diet.
I have done his diet for many many years on and off (mainly on) and always ate more veggies on it a than off. No we dont eat potatoes carrots, parsnips etc We dont eat apples,oranges bananas etc as they are very high carb.
We do have most green salad and veg cauliflower, turnips radish, berries, rhubarb melon etc.
The only time people are poorly is when they are detoxing from high carbs and processed foods but if they drink broth with pink salt and drink plenty of water the symptoms are gone very fast.
I have now gone from Atkins to a Keto diet there isnt much difference except for me the fat is higher and the carbs lower. But many people on Atkins are also Keto adapted..
My own problems before were my own fault as Atkins assumed that everyone doing his diet/Woe would be eating clean.. He didn't realise that a lot of companies would be making so many lowcarb products. I brought into lowcarb products and so never got the full benefit that I get now from eating clean. Its a shame as I never went over my carbs but never felt this well. I felt good but not amazing like now. I never sit down im always on the go now.
Sorry that your husband had a bad time of it.. but blame wherever you pick up the wrong info from and it wasn't Atkins.
Just as a footnote Do not buy any of the new books as its not Atkins as he did it.. They also have a load of Atkins products out all highly processed, he would be turning in his grave for sure.
OK then he followed it wrong, as did many many people but the point is the same my diet is mine and not the atkins I have just followed what my body needs and it isn't some faddy diet from Mr Atkins stable.
OK then he followed it wrong, as did many many people but the point is the same my diet is mine and not the atkins I have just followed what my body needs and it isn't some faddy diet from Mr Atkins stable.
There you go sprouting more newspaper rubbish.
Atkins never was a faddy diet... Its low fat that is the fad and the great news is, that fad is now dying a death.
You did the diet wrong and blame others that you did it wrong, and so brand the diet bad .. O---K
There you go sprouting more newspaper rubbish.
Atkins never was a faddy diet... Its low fat that is the fad and the great news is, that fad is now dying a death.
You did the diet wrong and blame others that you did it wrong, and so brand the diet bad .. O---K
I never did atkins I recognised it as a money making scheme and I have not followed the wrong diet I have consistently lost weight since I started my diet and have lost 5 stones. So please at least get that bit right.
I never did atkins I recognised it as a money making scheme and I have not followed the wrong diet I have consistently lost weight since I started my diet and have lost 5 stones. So please at least get that bit right.
OK your husband did it wrong then.. I'm sure he made all his own meals etc. Atkins was never about the making money as it was just a book and info, No products unlike now since the company was sold.
I'm just very surprised, that someone doing a diet that many criticise, would go on to criticise another diet that is along the same vein as their own just a lower carb/higher fat, cleaner version of your diet.
OK your husband did it wrong then.. I'm sure he made all his own meals etc. Atkins was never about the making money as it was just a book and info, No products unlike now since the company was sold.
I'm just very surprised, that someone doing a diet that many criticise, would go on to criticise another diet that is along the same vein as their own just a lower carb/higher fat, cleaner version of your diet.
I saw how ill people got doing it and saying it wasn't money making because it was a book is bizarre I doubt he gave them away.
I wasn't going to be critical about anyones diet until I was accused of being on the atkins diet. Which is not what I am doing IMO.
I saw how ill people got doing it and saying it wasn't money making because it was a book is bizarre I doubt he gave them away.
I wasn't going to be critical about anyones diet until I was accused of being on the atkins diet. Which is not what I am doing IMO.
He was asked to write a book after giving a interview in vogue, when he himself lost a lot of weight and got healthy doing a version of a diet from over a hundred years ago. He started to put his patients on the diet and it worked for them as well. So it didn't start off as a way to make money at all. Yes he got rich writing his books but unlike today it wasn't big business with all the added extras of a diet.
You didn't see how ill people were doing Atkins, as they were not doing Atkins. As you can see from being "accused" of doing Atkins there is a lot of misconceptions about his diet.
As you can see from being "accused" of doing Atkins there is a lot of misconceptions about his diet.
Speaking as the "accuser", Atkins is a low carb, high protein diet. I'm not sure what the difference is to the OP's diet. There's only so many ways you can go low carb, high protein. It's as if "Atkins" is a bad word.
Also, can I just point out to the OP that carbohydrates and protein both have 4 calories per gram, so protein is no less calories dense than carbohydrate, and both are about half as calorie dense as fat - it's the way those calories are metabolised that differs.
And a year from now OP will probably be on a different diet, because that's how these things typically go. Drop me a PM in 12 or 24 month's time to let me know how the way of life is going, and whether you're still on it because being keen on something after a couple of months isn't difficult.
I can't speak for the OP but I have been low carb no sugar higher protein for 15 months so far and can't imagine changing that dramatically as I feel so much better. 5 stones off so far some more to go yet and happy to continue as I am.
Speaking as the "accuser", Atkins is a low carb, high protein diet. I'm not sure what the difference is to the OP's diet. There's only so many ways you can go low carb, high protein. It's as if "Atkins" is a bad word.
Also, can I just point out to the OP that carbohydrates and protein both have 4 calories per gram, so protein is no less calories dense than carbohydrate, and both are about half as calorie dense as fat - it's the way those calories are metabolised that differs.
And a year from now OP will probably be on a different diet, because that's how these things typically go. Drop me a PM in 12 or 24 month's time to let me know how the way of life is going, and whether you're still on it because being keen on something after a couple of months isn't difficult.
Its a high fat low carb diet with medium protein. Newspapers always painted it as high protein and it never was.
Honestly you cant eat a lot of protein as its way to filling when combined with high fat. I was eating huge amounts of protein when I ate a "normal" diet that I had chips or other carby veg but with high fat you just cant do that.
I'm just never really hungry anymore. When I ate the normal diet I was always hungry and forever picking at food in-between meals.
I have been mostly eating high fat lowcarb for roughly 16 years now. I eat to live now where as before I lived to eat.. My mind was always on food shopping for it, cooking it, eating it then the next day the same.. Now I am growing a lot of my food and putting more thought into what goes into my mouth.
'according to a controversial study into the impact of protein consumption on longevity.'
' nutrition experts have cautioned that it's too early to draw firm conclusions from the research'
'I would urge general caution over observational studies, and particularly when looking at diet, given the difficulties of disentangling one nutrient or dietary component from another. You can get an association that might have some causal linkage or might not," said Peter Emery, head of nutrition and dietetics at King's College London.
Gunter Kuhnle, a food nutrition scientist at Reading University, said it was wrong "and potentially even dangerous" to compare the effects of smoking with the effect of meat and cheese as the study does.'
Hardly conclusive is it!
As posted earlier - this has been debunked already
Yes I am into weight training, but I don't think mollipops is into bodybuilding like I am!
It depends on the individual what diet is best for them. How can you possibly disagree with what mollie has posted about her fantastic achievements. Personally I do have a balanced diet, very balanced infact. I am just not dismissive of what works well for other people, unlike yourself.
Again you ignored my previous. I guess you are unable to answer.
All the best to molliepops, and seeing as I haven't responded to a single one of her posts, you can push off spinning that I've somehow denigrated her.
Comments
its not as simple as carbs are high in calories. You need to look at GI index as well. Simple carbs like bread, pasta and processed food are very easy for the body to break down and convert to sugar which eventually is stored as fat.
Eat low GI carbs like whole grains, brown rice and beans and you won't get a sugar spike and leaving you hungry again in a hour.
I have definitely found that to be true. Doesn't matter if it's pure sugar or wholemeal bread both affect me.
Not sure if it's just me either but I find them both quite depressive if I eat too much (for me) of any carbs I get much more down than if I don't eat them.
But wouldn't you have to eat quite high GI food to get enough carbs in one sitting for sugar spike ?
e.g according to Google, 1 slice of multigrain bread has 18grams of carbs but to get that from Broccoli you'd have to eat 260grams or with lettuce you'd have to eat over 600 grams.
The Glycemic Index was devised in a lab setting, using healthy subjects to test individual foods against a control, like pure glucose or white bread. It measures 50 grams of carbohydrate per each food meaning you would have to eat something like 500 grams of carrots achieve its full, purportedly high, GI score, which of course varies wildly depending on if they're raw, cooked, how they were cooked, the variety, the human subject and who conducted the test. Completely impractical to the way most people eat. And rarely do we eat foods in isolation, so the moment you combine one food with another you change its GI. Basically, all you have to do is add fat to a food to lower its GI.
If someone really needs a tool to help them make better food choices, then I'd say Glycemic Load is a better metric, as it at least takes into account the number of carbs... but since you need to factor in the GI score of a food, it still has its limitations.
I don't know. It might have it's uses for people without metabolic disorders, but I eat to my glucose meter, and I've been thwarted time and time again by so-called healthy, low GI grains. Carb counting is what really lowers HbA1Cs.
Sorry, my comment was in relation to the first line, not on diabetic bit.
And regarding sugar spikes and crashes, would a healthy person really feel the effects of normal blood sugar regulation? Something about that doesn't ring true.
In my case I've just adapted to diligently measuring how my body responds to what I put in. My basic philosophy is that if something's not 'natural', it's probably going to have more of an impact on my weight. I do weigh everyday - which I know plenty would not advocate - but for me personally, keeping a track of weight creeping up is the best kickstarter for thinking about what might have contributed to that and then scaling back for a couple of days to restore the balance.
That said, in all that time I've not given a second thought to factors such as what are 'sins', and what's protein vs particularly what's 'carbs'; God it makes my teeth nash the way the word carbohydrate has been turned into that 'buzzphrase' by the weight-loss industry. My secret was (is!) realising - accepting, I think that's the 'keyword' if there is one - that I was just eating too much, and too large a proportion of that being 'treats', no matter how much I convinced myself my diet was basically healthy. I still love fish & chips, pizza, alcohol & co - as much as I ever did - just without any such frequency as I'd convinced myself was 'alright' and that there must have been some other reason I was podgy whilst munching on otherwise nutritional foodstuffs most of the time.
But within that there is good 'ready meal' stuff out there that helps to ensure you're getting adequate calories and nutrition. Innocent Veg pots are good for work lunches, as are Covent Garden soups - I tend to stock up on them from the 'gone off' aisle in Sainsburys, which is my first stop every time I pop in
All this talk of food, but I do make sure I move more too. There's a conveniently mean hill a couple of minutes' walk away from the office, which I've got into the habit of doing at least once every lunchtime. Then there's also walking to town to get ingredients for my weekend treat 'from scratch' cooking of curries, risottos etc instead of going in the car. Two other things have worked for me - sorry to be graphic, but pooing is very important - and prune juice really does do the trick, I honestly don't know why more people aren't sold on that. In my case also, but I realise this isn't for everyone - adding chillies to stuff (seeds intact) does seem to have a positive effect metabolically.
I don't know about all the science behind it all and I can only speak to what works for me, I find whole grains/whole meal breads far more satisfying than white, I can have one slice with my eggs and feel perfectly well until about 1pm when I have lunch. Have two slices of white with the same amount of eggs and I get cravings for carbs well before midday.
I don't know if it's just in my mind even - could be I admit.
Yep, as you say, we're all different. I doubt it's all in your head-- fibre definitely has its advantages-- but even if it were, I think anything that gives you a psychological edge and keeps you on the right path is perfectly valid.
Beyond the psychological factor, I just don't see point of basing a diet on a GI chart, especially as no two charts are alike, as the results in these tests are rough to the point they are not even reproducible.
I just don't like seeing others rubbish it as a fad that cannot work, or claim they have the magic that works for everyone either.
I also like an uncomplicated approach I do weigh some foods just to find what a proper portion size and I count calories but that is all. If I eat too much fat etc as long as it is within my calorie limit I no longer worry about it as I have found I need fats in my diet to stop my skin getting horribly dry and my hair getting very dry. Doesn't seem to matter if the fat is so called healthy ones or batter and cheese it's the fact it is fat that makes the difference to my skin.
Funny how I also eat Atkins WOE and I eat a ton of veggies as well... Its a high fat, "medium protein" and low carb. I always stay on induction and am now Keto adapted.The difference in my life is outstanding.
Nothing at all wrong in having cream (in moderation) and fat is very very good for you. Fat as in coconut oil, butter, ghee, dripping,lard etc. My body burns fat off at the rate of knots and not once have I done any exercise. Although I am now out into my garden most days digging and other things that I never thought I would do again.
I am never hungry, never have cravings and have not had one nap since last summer. I have so much energy its amazing, no depression or down days whatsoever... all my family and friends cannot believe it, as I was so desperately ill for a long time.
Atkins must have changed is all I can say, when my husband did it when it first became popular you were cautioned against vegetables and fruit and had to eat protein and fats only. Made a lot of people very ill.
Sorry but that is absolute rubbish. I have Atkins first books and videos and nowhere does it even hint at this! Like a lot of people you have either read the book wrong or read a bad copy of the book in a newspaper/magazine.. There was all kinds of rubbish sprouted in the newspapers about his diet.
I have done his diet for many many years on and off (mainly on) and always ate more veggies on it a than off. No we dont eat potatoes carrots, parsnips etc We dont eat apples,oranges bananas etc as they are very high carb.
We do have most green salad and veg cauliflower, turnips radish, berries, rhubarb melon etc.
The only time people are poorly is when they are detoxing from high carbs and processed foods but if they drink broth with pink salt and drink plenty of water the symptoms are gone very fast.
I have now gone from Atkins to a Keto diet there isnt much difference except for me the fat is higher and the carbs lower. But many people on Atkins are also Keto adapted..
My own problems before were my own fault as Atkins assumed that everyone doing his diet/Woe would be eating clean.. He didn't realise that a lot of companies would be making so many lowcarb products. I brought into lowcarb products and so never got the full benefit that I get now from eating clean. Its a shame as I never went over my carbs but never felt this well. I felt good but not amazing like now. I never sit down im always on the go now.
Sorry that your husband had a bad time of it.. but blame wherever you pick up the wrong info from and it wasn't Atkins.
Just as a footnote Do not buy any of the new books as its not Atkins as he did it.. They also have a load of Atkins products out all highly processed, he would be turning in his grave for sure.
There you go sprouting more newspaper rubbish.
Atkins never was a faddy diet... Its low fat that is the fad and the great news is, that fad is now dying a death.
You did the diet wrong and blame others that you did it wrong, and so brand the diet bad .. O---K
I never did atkins I recognised it as a money making scheme and I have not followed the wrong diet I have consistently lost weight since I started my diet and have lost 5 stones. So please at least get that bit right.
OK your husband did it wrong then.. I'm sure he made all his own meals etc. Atkins was never about the making money as it was just a book and info, No products unlike now since the company was sold.
I'm just very surprised, that someone doing a diet that many criticise, would go on to criticise another diet that is along the same vein as their own just a lower carb/higher fat, cleaner version of your diet.
I saw how ill people got doing it and saying it wasn't money making because it was a book is bizarre I doubt he gave them away.
I wasn't going to be critical about anyones diet until I was accused of being on the atkins diet. Which is not what I am doing IMO.
He was asked to write a book after giving a interview in vogue, when he himself lost a lot of weight and got healthy doing a version of a diet from over a hundred years ago. He started to put his patients on the diet and it worked for them as well. So it didn't start off as a way to make money at all. Yes he got rich writing his books but unlike today it wasn't big business with all the added extras of a diet.
You didn't see how ill people were doing Atkins, as they were not doing Atkins. As you can see from being "accused" of doing Atkins there is a lot of misconceptions about his diet.
Speaking as the "accuser", Atkins is a low carb, high protein diet. I'm not sure what the difference is to the OP's diet. There's only so many ways you can go low carb, high protein. It's as if "Atkins" is a bad word.
Also, can I just point out to the OP that carbohydrates and protein both have 4 calories per gram, so protein is no less calories dense than carbohydrate, and both are about half as calorie dense as fat - it's the way those calories are metabolised that differs.
And a year from now OP will probably be on a different diet, because that's how these things typically go. Drop me a PM in 12 or 24 month's time to let me know how the way of life is going, and whether you're still on it because being keen on something after a couple of months isn't difficult.
Its a high fat low carb diet with medium protein. Newspapers always painted it as high protein and it never was.
Honestly you cant eat a lot of protein as its way to filling when combined with high fat. I was eating huge amounts of protein when I ate a "normal" diet that I had chips or other carby veg but with high fat you just cant do that.
I'm just never really hungry anymore. When I ate the normal diet I was always hungry and forever picking at food in-between meals.
I have been mostly eating high fat lowcarb for roughly 16 years now. I eat to live now where as before I lived to eat.. My mind was always on food shopping for it, cooking it, eating it then the next day the same.. Now I am growing a lot of my food and putting more thought into what goes into my mouth.
All the best to molliepops, and seeing as I haven't responded to a single one of her posts, you can push off spinning that I've somehow denigrated her.
Only after you started going on about ancestors dying at 30 or whatever it was.
That is very satisfying