Atkins and Athletes

With a 95% failure rate among all dieters dieting, perhaps people in general really don't know what works for them. If you ask each person out of that 5% successful catagory what works--I'm sure there would be about 20 or more different themes. In my opinion, the processed, giant portions, hydrogenated fats, hormone inflicted foods and diet fads are a big part of what's caused this country so much trouble...along with more and more people becoming sedentary and increasingly stressed out. When I was a personal trainer--all day long people would come in and tell me they want to loose their spare tires, and fat thighs. None of them knew what to eat. Sure this was a specific sample of people, but rare was it that an athlete would come in and want to improve performace. This ultimately made me get out of it. "If I have to talk about abbs and fat thighs one more time!!" I thought over and over. (tangent there--oops!) Anyway--Mag, I think you were referring to what works for you, and that's great. It sounds productive. Now it's the keeping up with it that counts. jerrys

Originally posted by Mag Bowen jerrycat: what are some other whole carbs foods? You mentioned whole wheat pasta and oatmeal. Did you ready something about this? Do you eat fruits? --mag Your carbs should mostly come from complex carbs. This site has a relatively easily understood explanation: www.nlm.nih.gov/.../002469.htm Simple sugars wil give you quick energy boost, but should be used sparingly.

I just did a search in the site www.quackwatch.org, where the Atkins diet was listed as the Worst Diet for 2003. Where have you been for the last 15 years? The Atkins did not just get popular in 2003. Also, just what credentials does www.quackwatch.org have? I have always been interested in chemistry (my major) and anthropology (my major for a while). Man has not been a huge grain and sugar eater for over 60 years! There are huge groups of the world population that cannot digest cows milk because their genetics have not evolved. It appears at least 5000 years is needed for us to evolve using new food sources. We are still meat eaters. How come americans are getting HUGE on diets recommended by mainstream doctors? Alternative medicine is now very popular because they work. The atkins diet is not for everyone, but for some people it is the only way to loose weight, and still remain healthy. The US Congress funded studies on the three major types of diets, good carbs/low fat, the Zone, and Atkins. Every major study reported the Atkins people lost more weight and also lowered their blod cholesterol. These studies reported back in 2003, so much for quackwatch! I also know you can make top ten in masters and have strong workouts while on Atkins.

5,000 years is quite sometime. But I thought the development of Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans being able to digest cows milk is a develop more around 2,500 years or so. The Southern Europeans like the ancient Greeks and Romans and so forth were more likely to drink water and wine. The Northern Europeans, the Germanic peoples and the Celts drink milk more and beer. So, the descendents of both groups have different reactions toward cows milk based upon what their ancestors did. Its harder to trace 5,000 years since written language developed in Europe a little over 3,000 years ago and we have no records of what people consume before that point. However, maybe archaeological evident points to the two different groups having different drinking tastes earlier.

Cynthia, You are pretty good on your assumptions. Those are part of the reasons. We can tract cow's milk consumption in all regions of europe and the world. There are large parts of Germany that did not drink cows milk. Up till the 1930's the largest immigrant group in the USA was Germans. Many Germans do not have the ability to digest the lactose in milk. Those like myself have a recessive gene ( I am half german - half scottish -all american) GALT enzyme (the enzyme needed to convert galactose into a form useable by the body The body breaks the lactose down into galactose and glucose. Glucose is the sugar used by the body for energy. Galactosemia means too much galactose in the blood caused by the individual "missing" the enzyme (known as GALT) to convert galactose into glucose. This accumulation of galactose is a poison to the body and can cause serious complications such as the following and if untreated, as high as 75% of infants will die: Remember seeing the photos of "starving" african children ater WW2 when the good old USA was sending ships full of powdered milk? The childrens bellies were bloated, but not from starvation. Those were the effects of milk on people who could not digest it.:mad: "Milk is NOT good for everybody". I ended up marrying a beauty queen winner from the Phillipines, both of us are recessive carriers of classic galactosemia, inheriting one normal gene from one parent and one gene containing the error that leads to classic galactosemia from the other parent. This person's genotype would be G/N and their enzyme activity would be less than normal, but not so much so as to cause medical complications or require dietary management. Out of four kids, one has galactosemia. Hence my knowledge of milk consumption. At the end of 1998, cases of galactosemia were recorded in 24 different populations and ethnic groups in 15 countries worldwide. The mutations most frequently cited are Q188R, K285N, S135L, and N314D. Q188R is the most common mutation in European populations or in those predominantly of European descent. A small ethnic group in Ireland, known as The Travelers, can be as much as 60 times as prone to the Q188R mutation as is the general Irish population. Genetics has many things I enjoy, history, geography, chemistry, all together. If you or anyone else is interested, look at http://www.galactosemia.org

i have done atkins all last year,i now go onto weight watchers 123,reason..ive had enough meat already..love bread too..4 years ago i lost 4 stones(56 pounds)on 123 maybe i'll shrivell away this year..there again i do love bread.....

Hey Sparx23! Your note about Weight Watchers struck a familiar note. I lost just about 60 pounds (I guess you'd say four stones plus) on Weight Watchers. When I had lost about 45-50 of the total 60 pounds, I joined a health club/pool. That's when I returned to swimming after a 13-1/2 year break. (Of course, that's when I gained the weight, too.) So, I can say that Weight Watchers DOES work. I have spoken with a few Registered Dieticians in my professional field concerning the Atkins vs. Weight Watcher's diets. They feel that a total Atkins diet is an extreme. There is a place for bread in our diets, too. I have also learnt that one needs to work with moderate weight training, too, to build muscle tone. So, from this side of the pond, I have certainly walked in your shoes. I am sure no one will doubt that regular swimming will keep us from looking like Miss Piggy. :D Keep up the good work. I certainly have no regrets. Cheerio.

I'm another WW loser. Lost 35 pounds last year, have kept it off 9 months so far fairly easily. I thought the points plan was easy, encouraging high fiber foods, but allowing the little bit of treat every now and again. Very doable to live with.

Originally posted by Mark in MD Hey Sparx23! Your note about Weight Watchers struck a familiar note. About 10 years ago, I was on Nutri-System, which is pretty similar to Weight Watchers, or Jenny Craig... I lost well over 90 pounds on that one. I get 20-30 lb fluctuations in last 10 years, but the bulk of the weight has stayed off. I'm quite happy about that. I'm working on the last 20 pounds of fat right now.