Can you elaborate how the lipid profiles took a turn to the worst and what that could mean?
Atkins
- Thread starter WeezyTT
- Start date
Can you elaborate how the lipid profiles took a turn to the worst and what that could mean?
then they haven`t tracked there cals correctly
you simply cannot be in a surplus and lose weight,its physicly impossible.
so lets say i eat only protein (if possible) and my maintanance was 4000cals but i eat 5000cals what happens to the other 1000calsif it isnt stored as fat.
also look at the inuit people(eskimos) they eat only protein anf fat no carbs but most are still overweight.
Actually you could. If you were just over your limit, if you participated in an activity that used up your glycogen which is very heavy, then you will technically reduce your mass.
By the way, Inuit people don't eat like they use to i.e lots of fish, good fats, etc, that's why they are now overweight. There are many studies done in the past that have analysed their food intake and their relations to health which were very good.
Let me put it simple for you, because your special.
Diet's dont work, almost everyone that goes on a diet will relapse, 99/100. What has been proven though is a whole lifestyle change. People who go on diets may lose more fat and lose it quicker, but they'll not only put it back on but they will have lost muscle mass. And the next time they go on a diet it will take twice as long to lose the weight.
If you want to feed yourself with large quantities of protein and fat, particular the bad type, then even if you maintain thsi over a long term your going to suffer the consequences via increase of disease. I would be encouraging foods like vegetables and fruit which are fat burners, calorie light, satiety foods, antioxident, phytochemicals etc, you can eat your toxic foods i know what i'll be eating and recommending
I hope that wasn't to hard for you to understand.
Oh baby. I knew you loved me. :luxlove:
Bring your skinny ass to my place next time, and i'll give you some of my all-natural protein.
Full of antioxidants and yadadada
Buzz, re-read my previous post and grasp FULLY what I am trying to say.
Even WITH the biological processes that occur during KETO, the deficit energy requirement is being met, and it is possible with a "reasonable" surplus one can still function in losing "tissue" (and water); however, if one goes to far in the caloric surplus, KETO will NOT matter, and tissue WILL be gained. The laws of energy "balances" within the body are still being played out.
Another way to put it:
On a low-carb (potentially KETO) diet, one "can" have a "potentially" greater loss "per calorie" "consumed" (keeping things equal in the diet and training). And, I put emphasis on per calorie.
Get FIRED UP!
Let yourselves ERUPT!
Be your best........
Bring out your best
Stand every test.........
Be stronger than anything you encounter in life, and ROCK ON!
Chillen
Even WITH the biological processes that occur during KETO, the deficit energy requirement is being met, and it is possible with a "reasonable" surplus one can still function in losing "tissue" (and water); however, if one goes to far in the caloric surplus, KETO will NOT matter, and tissue WILL be gained. The laws of energy "balances" within the body are still being played out.
Another way to put it:
On a low-carb (potentially KETO) diet, one "can" have a "potentially" greater loss "per calorie" "consumed" (keeping things equal in the diet and training). And, I put emphasis on per calorie.
Get FIRED UP!
Let yourselves ERUPT!
Be your best........
Bring out your best
Stand every test.........
Be stronger than anything you encounter in life, and ROCK ON!
Chillen
Last edited:
Why not ?
Why isn't a ' keto diet ' a way to go for " all persons " ?
Why ?
What reason is there be " careful " ?
And " whom " - i.e " have be careful...to whom " - are you referring to ..what group of people ?
So, all other things being equal, if for example, you went on a keto diet of 2,800 calories vs a diet of 2,800 calories in which carbs make up the majority of your macro nutrients, you suggest you may have a " greater loss " ( of fat i assume ) with the keto diet ?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by " greater loss " - in the context of most cases of a keto diet, do you mean a real ( in terms of numbers ) but an insignificant loss...or a significant loss / difference in how much fat you can lose using the 2,800 calorie keto approach versus the other ?
It that is so then why doesn't McDonalds do Atkins say provide unlimited burgers without the bun, cheese, bacon ? They could even make more money as people who need to lose weight would flock there knowing they could eat and not get fat (or fatter than they are) and instead lose weight.
if your on a keto ,veggie only,lettuce only,cabbage soup,diet,it doesnt matter, if your calorie intake is higher than you calorie output,you will gain weight,if you dissagree please tell me what happens to the exess,if its not used "which if its exess" it isnt then what happens to it???.
,if its not used "which if its exess" it isnt then what happens to it???.a scientist lived with the inuit 40yrs ago for 6mts,there diet is healthy but even then they carried extra fat,same as all the animals in that enviroment.
Sure basically at the 6 month point, overall cholesterol had increased but it was a result of an increase in HDL (good) cholesterol with a decrease in LDL. After that year however, total cholesterol had increased, with a significant decrease in HDL and a significant increase in LDL. Thats all I really know as I did not have much time to talk to him, and specifics of his study were not the main point of my conversation with him, but I hope that helps.
Is a calorie a calorie? lyle macdonald
So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this:
1. A sufficient protein intake will always beat out an insufficient protein intake, no matter what you do. Since all of the diets described in this book are based around sufficient protein, this is a non-issue.
2. Assuming caloric intake can be controlled (and protein is adequate of course), shuffling of carbs and fats tends to have a minor, approaching negligble effect.
3. There might be exceptions at the extremes (folks going to single digit bodyfat or extreme obesity) but that doesn't apply to the majority of folks.
In this respect, given adequate protein, it seems to matter very little what diet is chosen. From a weight or bodyfat standpoint, high carb should be as good as low-carb. Right? Well, no. The problem is that there's a HUGE assumption built into statement #2 above: that calories can be controlled under a given set of conditions. As has been found repeatedly in the real-world, this simply isn't a safe assumption.
Put a little bit differently, it might very well be possible to lose all the weight/fat you wanted on a calorie controlled junk-food diet with some high quality protein source. The problem that would probably arise is that most people wouldn't be able to control their hunger or appetite on such a diet and they'd probably end up eating more in the long run. In eating more, they'd either lose less weight/fat or even gain it. Even if a given dietary approach appears optimal for some reason, if you can't control your caloric intake, and end up eating more because of it, it won't produce results.
Meaning this: you'll frequently see folks make comparisons along the lines of 'well, it's easier to eat 300 calories from food X than from food Y, therefore a calorie isn't a calorie'. They may be generally correct but this criticism is tangential to the main issue. This is why I divided the data sets into studies where calories are controlled (usually in a highly artificial fashion) and where they are not (having more real world application).
It's obviously easier to overconsume calories from jelly beans or candy than from vegetable just as it's easier to eat 3000 calories from butter than from celery (no human alive could eat enough celery to get 3000 digestible calories). That matters hugely under conditions where folks are allowed to eat whatever they want. Quite in fact, many many diets are based around this simple fact: make people eat less of the foods that are easy to overconsume and/or make them eat lots of those foods that are tough to overeat and they will lose weight because they automatically reduce their caloric intake. I'll discuss that topic more in the next chapter.
But that only applies to the situation where calories aren't being monitored. When calories are being controlled rigidly, the source of calories (whether you're comparing carbs to fat, or even different sources of carbs and fat) matters to a much smaller degree.
Once again, my point is that if calories are being strictly controlled, the source doesn't appear to make a humongous difference in terms of body composition changes. As well, once you get protein intake to proper levels, fooling around with carbohydate and fat ratios (within the context of identical caloric intakes) don't seem to make a huge amount of difference either. The bottom line still comes down to calories in versus calories out; it's simply that it may be easier to affect calories in (food intake) or calories out (through activity) with different macronutrient breakdowns.
As well, the source of calories can affect other aspects of physiology beyond body composition. Health, energy levels, hunger/appetite and all the rest interact here. So while a calorie controlled diet of jelly beans, butter and protein powder might very well work to lose weight/fat, it probably wouldn't be as healthy compared to a diet of low GI carbohydrates, healthier oils and lean protein sources.
Understand me here? Issues such as hunger control, long-term adherence, individual variance, athletic performance, and a few others all go into the determination of what food might or might not be a better choice under a given set of circumstances. So while a calorie might be more or less a calorie under somewhat artificial conditions (where calories are or can be strictly controlled), it's a little more complex than that in the real world. Other issues interact. The next few chapters will adress those other issues.
if your on a keto ,veggie only,lettuce only,cabbage soup,diet,it doesnt matter, if your calorie intake is higher than you calorie output,you will gain weight,if you dissagree please tell me what happens to the exess
I explained it to you in my post, but apparently your an idiot and can't comprehend what I wrote. Done with you.
Keto works.
Makes sense, but most people on a low carb high fat/protein diet for long periods of time are people's whose goals are in bodybuilding. They care more about the anabolic state they are in, the increased testosterone.
Though I've read of people that have been on diets such as AD for 4 years now and their cholestrol levels are still fine.
Mr. McD is wrong.
You should do a little less insulting and a bit more explaining of science. We are here to learn and if you are throwing insults when challenged, you don't look very convincing.
How many more times am I supposed to explain it?
If I explain it once, and it still doesn't get through to you, I wont bother repeating myself.
if you can lose weight on a surplus,you might think im an idiot,but you must be a physical phnomenom
show me the facts instead of childish remarks.
and to say someone like lyle macdonald who has forgotton more than you know, is wrong,just shows how ignorant you are.
BTW i didnt say keto diets dont work they just dont work on a surplus like any other diet doesnt.