Adkins?

[Lyndamont]

I am following the Atkins Diet and it works well for me. Are calories the only measurable thing on the daily entries that show progress? Is there a way to have carbohydrate limits be your goal that is measured by fitbit?? I was here years ago and it seems they still have not added low carbohydrate diets to the food entries! Thanks for your input..

[GershonSurge]

You can measure your progress on the Atkin's diet by the onset of the degenerative diseases caused by the diet. 

[Lyndamont]

Interesting reply. Personally, I've not experienced any adverse side effects of following the diet correctly. I am a nurse and pay close attention to nutritional values and dietary needs. I do not "overload" on any of the recommended dietary choices and maintain a well rounded food intake. I've tried many other ways of eating and for me, personally, this one works best for maintaining my energy and helping me lose weight. I have used it for years and have not had any health issues.  I do appreciate your response. I believe that everyone is an individual and that what works best for one person does not always work best for another. I am in my 60's and remain active, have lots of energy and rarely any pain not related to over exertion. Now, talk to me when I'm 70 and I may have a different story. Anything is possible......

[Daves_Not_Here · Accepted solution]

---

@Lyndamont wrote:

... I've tried many other ways of eating and for me, personally, this one works best for maintaining my energy and helping me lose weight. I have used it for years and have not had any health issues...  

---

Lyndamont - I've had a similar experience and sentiment relative to Atkins, although I'm a little younger at 58.  I have a strong family history of diabetes and heart disease that took both my parents and all four of my grandparents young.  Speedy effortless weight loss with Atkins at age 40 vastly improved my markers and gave me hope that I might someday meet my grandchildren.

Much more than any other regimen, it seems that Atkins evokes an emotional, visceral negative response in some.  Based on the hateful reactions I've received, I truly think some anti-Atkins zealots would much rather I die struggling to adhere to a low-fat diet, than have me flourish on the A-word.  People engage in all sorts of supposedly self-destructive behaviors without causing offense, but asserting you limit carbs and thrive is apparently beyond the pale.  The gleeful reaction to Atkins' death from head trauma, including dishonest efforts to implicate his diet in it, are truly pathetic responses by a vindictive, offended nutritional orthodoxy that is increasingly dismissed for its active role in fostering the obesity epidemic.  Atkins demonstrated that the emperor had no clothes, and boy, do they remain pissed /Rant Off/  

Ironically, I now consume more of a Mediterranean diet, but Atkins gave me the confidence that I could self-modulate appetite to control weight versus trying to resist constant, gnawing hunger as the nutritional establishment would have me try and fail to do.

As to your original question, I do not believe you can define goals and thresholds in Fitbit based on carb consumption; however, you can certainly see the macro nutrient proportions summarized on an ongoing basis and make adjustments accordingly.  Obviously, you have to log all your consumption, and when you create custom foods, you have to specify at least the fats, carbs, and protein portions.

[tractorlegs]

@Daves_Not_Here -- Great post, thanks. As of late I think the scientific community and the academic community (I can give specific examples if anyone would like) is leaning towards carbohydrates, and especially refined sugar (specifically fructose) as the leading cause of obesity. The medical community is still in "low fat" mode, although studies are piling up that say the opposite. Atkins works when done correctly, as do a number of low-sugar programs. Anyway, again - great post. We love objectivity lol --  

[Daves_Not_Here]

---

@tractorlegs wrote:

@Daves_Not_Here -- Great post, thanks. As of late I think the scientific community and the academic community (I can give specific examples if anyone would like) is leaning towards carbohydrates, and especially refined sugar (specifically fructose) as the leading cause of obesity. The medical community is still in "low fat" mode, although studies are piling up that say the opposite. Atkins works when done correctly, as do a number of low-sugar programs. Anyway, again - great post. We love objectivity lol --  

---

Thanks, and congrats on your 59 lb. weight loss!   That has to feel great!  I'm right behind you in my transformation from fat and ugly to just ugly.

I'm very interested in the emerging hypotheses as to the role of carbs and fructose in the obesity epidemic, which our esteemed medical establishment has been curiously ineffective in addressing. Loving how that pesky Taub is circumventing it with http://nusi.org/ .  Great article on the effort  at https://www.wired.com/2014/08/what-makes-us-fat/

Of course, I become biased when my personal experience aligns with a particular hypothesis.  Here are the results of my highly scientific peer-reviewed double-blind study, sample size = 1

• Low-fat (age 21 to 40): Sucks.  Constant hunger.  Very slow losses even with daily cardio.  Terrible LDL, HDL, TriGl, numbers, etc..   Aggravated inflammation and arthritis.  High risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.  Life expectancy: 55.  Thanks, healthcare establishment!  If I didn't know any better, I would notice that you financially benefit from rising healthcare costs due to rising obesity rates.  I would notice that you promote ineffective weight-loss theories that seem designed to exacerbate the problem.  I would notice you are more than intellectually incurious in the face of contrary hypotheses and evidence - you try to marginalize apostates like Atkins and Taub who have the temerity to go off the reservation and achieve better results. 

• Low-carb (age 40 to 58, present):  Ah, much better!  No hunger.  Weight loss so fast, I have to slow it down.  Suppresses inflammation and arthritis.  Improved energy and mood.  When I'm losing weight, I feel better not worse.  No diabetes.  Numbers great.  Life expectancy: I might actually meet my grandchildren.  The only issue is encountering the occasional low-fat bigot/shill who is offended that I am still above ground after having rejected their dogma.

I love the "low-carb eating is very risky - bad things could happen".  Really?  Worse than having a stroke and dying young?  I'll take my chances.

[tractorlegs]

@Daves_Not_Here -- Academia and the Scientific community are usually a few years ahead of the medical establishment. The role of Fructose (within sucrose, and in HFCS 55) in the current epidemic of obesity and NAFLD (Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease) is so well established as to be undeniable. However, medical sources (like WebMD and the Mayo Clinic and probably our local doctors) rarely mention refined sugar and empty carbohydrates as the culprits.

A simple explanation is that fructose renders the hormone Leptin useless. Leptin is the hormone released by fat cells that tells our brain we are full, and to stop eating. When we eat fructose, Leptin is blocked and we continue to feel hungry even when we don't need the excess food. Of course, the real picture is larger than that, and there are many other factors contributing to obesity, but this Fructose/Leptin thing is big.

If you haven't seen this video, it's worth a look. It's about 90 minutes long but is an excellent, objective look at the role of refined fructose in our lives from Dr. Robert Lustig. The vid has been out for a long time, so I wouldn't be surprised if you've already seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

If you're interested, I can send you links to numerous scientific studies housed at the NCBI and other sources, both on fructose's role in obesity and in NAFLD.. Comically, one of the articles at NCBI (a government website) has the subtitle: "fructose as a weapon of mass destruction" 

[Daves_Not_Here]

@tractorlegs- I had come to the opinion that fructose was a major factor contributing to the obesity epidemic in that it somehow interfered with hormones and satiety, but I was not clear on the Leptin link.  Thanks for netting it out!

The Lustig video is vaguely familiar, but I hadn't taken the time to watch it in full.  I'll listen to it today and tomorrow during my commute.  Very interested in seeing the NCBI links and suggesting you post them up here,

Tangent 1:  at the grocery store, I've noticed that many processed foods are now promoted as "gluten-free" because apparently there is a Celiac Disease epidemic going on?  What I'm not seeing are foods promoted as "fructose-free" or "corn syrup-free".  My cynical side notices that we (industry) are willing to indulge the buying public in their various harmless fads as long as an anti-fructose sentiment doesn't take hold.  That obesity epidemic is the gift that keeps on giving.

Tangent 2:  Until a month ago, I had been a lifetime consumer of Diet Coke and Diet Dr. Pepper, considering it a harmless vice, but I've heard of recent research that indicates that artificial sweeteners may affect hormones and pancreas function similarly to fructose or sucrose?  I haven't given that a close look yet, but dropped those drinks so I could start hitting the outrageous Fitbit water goals (thanks Fitbit, my bladder is now fully activated and stress-tested).  It's working -- the weight is falling off and I have no cravings (other than for, occasionally, a latrine).  I just don't know if the satiety comes from the water, the lack of sweeteners, or both.

[tractorlegs]

@Daves_Not_Here -- Re: Tangent 1, I completely agree. Tangent 2, maybe this is something I need to look into - I drink a lot of diet coke and have looked at it as harmless.

Links to studies etc.:Some of these links go to actual studies, others go to legitimate "scholarly" sites. Lustig's video at YouTube ties it all together nicely, however - I think you'll enjoy that.

1. Fructose and NAFLD:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405421/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3587472/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4135494/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4838515/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2009.58/full

http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/

https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart

2. The tie between Fructose and Leptin:

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2003-031855

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/295/5/R1370.full

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/295/5/R1365.short

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107206 -- Note that this one seems to prove the opposite, that Fructose does not cause weight gain because of the tie to Leptin. A lone voice, however.

https://olumialife.com/knowledge/do-glucose-and-fructose-affect-leptin-differently-158

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/01/14/fructose-spurs-overeating.aspx

http://caloriesproper.com/fructose-vs-leptin-et-al/

https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-7-82

[Daves_Not_Here]

@tractorlegs -- Great links.  I must admit that I was not at all aware of the increase in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.  So you've woken me further up, but now I have even more to learn.  Curse you!

I watched the Lustig video all the way through last night -- I now realize I had previously glazed over during the biochemistry discussion and missed the conclusion.  I'll admit I don't have the knowledge to judge the validity of that section of the talk, but I find him to be credible and it seems there is alignment between his assertions and our observations (such as increased obesity in 6 month-olds).  All I know is that I do much better when I avoid processed foods in general.

Here are a few links that speak to the notion that artificial sweeteners may be linked to obesity, heart disease and diabetes, in part due to neurological interference:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
• http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929
• https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nature13793.pdf

These aren't as devastating as the Lustig presentation, but interesting to consider.  I'm avoiding these sweeteners right now for water and feel pretty good.

[Daves_Not_Here]

Interesting article from a physician who is seeing excellent outcomes (including diabetes reversal) in her patients who limit carbs:

http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-a-low-carb-diet-changed-my-life-and-my-patients-lives

[etvete]

---

@Daves_Not_Here wrote:

Tangent 1:  at the grocery store, I've noticed that many processed foods are now promoted as "gluten-free" because apparently there is a Celiac Disease epidemic going on?  What I'm not seeing are foods promoted as "fructose-free" or "corn syrup-free".  My cynical side notices that we (industry) are willing to indulge the buying public in their various harmless fads as long as an anti-fructose sentiment doesn't take hold.  That obesity epidemic is the gift that keeps on giving.

---

As someone who has gluten sensitivity (and though some may claim it doesn't actually exist, gluten triggers migraines for me to the point where I have been in the hospital and in the ER multiple times because of them) these processed foods that are gluten free are wonderful. Though I agree with you about the annoyance of those who view it a a fad diet, as it is not a healthy alternative if you just switch out your whole grain bread for gluten free bread and switch your regular cookies for gluten free cookies. That being said, although only 10% of the population has Celiac's there is an uncertain amount that has a sensitivity or allergy to gluten. Some people, like those with Lupus, Fibromyalgia, and Mitochondrial Disease, all benefit from gluten free diets even though they are not necessarily diagnosed with Celiac Disease as well. 

[Dominique]

---

@etvete wrote:

That being said, although only 10% of the population has Celiac's. 

---

I think you got the order of magnitude wrong: according to Mayo Clinic (and a number of other legit sources), The rate of celiac disease in Western countries is estimated at about 1 percent of the population.

That would match my observations of people around me.

[Daves_Not_Here]

---

etvete wrote: 

As someone who has gluten sensitivity (and though some may claim it doesn't actually exist, gluten triggers migraines for me to the point where I have been in the hospital and in the ER multiple times because of them) these processed foods that are gluten free are wonderful. Though I agree with you about the annoyance of those who view it a a fad diet, as it is not a healthy alternative if you just switch out your whole grain bread for gluten free bread and switch your regular cookies for gluten free cookies. That being said, although only 10% of the population has Celiac's there is an uncertain amount that has a sensitivity or allergy to gluten. Some people, like those with Lupus, Fibromyalgia, and Mitochondrial Disease, all benefit from gluten free diets even though they are not necessarily diagnosed with Celiac Disease as well. 

---

Thanks @etvete for the illumination.  My mistake - I was unaware of the broader applicability of gluten-free diets.  I have overheard people talk about how they avoid gluten without any underlying condition to address, in the same way they avoid saturated fats, so I had concluded gluten-free is faddish.

[etvete]

@Dominique Whoops! you are right, Celiac's is indeed only 1%. I clearly was typing too fast and forgot to double check my numbers.