On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 06:57:30 EST Sheryl Canter <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> I was trying to make a distinction between a "lower" carb diet (80-150
grams
> of carb per day) compared to the American average of 300-400 grams
> per day, and a very low carb diet that puts you into ketosis--under 30
grams
> per day.

Um... Sheryl...   I hate to tell you this, but anything under 100 grams
will put you on ketosis.  Not necessarily enough to register on the
"quick and dirty" urine test, but ketones in the bloodstream from the
reconversion of stored fat (and that IS "ketosis").  (OK, so I didn't
really hate telling you that...  :-)


> People have a tendency to think that if less is good, then none (or
> almost none) is even better, and I don't think this is true.

Well, as far as carbs and ketones go, you've got things pretty wrong, but
in general I agree with this statement, except that the opposite is also
often true (if some is good, more is better),  BOTH can cause all sorts
of problems.

> glucose.  As I recall, when you eat a VERY low carb (versus low carb)
diet,
> you don't have adequate release of seritonin in the brain, and thus
> symptoms  and cravings can result.

When you get your books, look up the term "gluconeogenesis," and then
chew on the fact that the body can do this with 58% of the protein you
consume, and even 10% of the fats...

And I am here to tell you that cravings can disappear ENTIRELY on a very
low carb diet.  This has been my personal experience, as well as the
experience of many other long-term successful lowcarbers.

>
> Most people find it very difficult to stick to a very low carb (under
30
> grams per day) diet.  It can cause a precipitous drop in blood
pressure,
> constipation, lack of energy, and depression--not to mention cravings
that
> are coming from body wisdom (as opposed to addictive cravings).

Where the heck are you getting this nonsense?  "MOST PEOPLE?"  have you
made a survey?  How about "most people" who find it very difficult to
follow low calorie, or lowfat diets?   These may be things that have
happened to SOME small number of people, but it does not alter the fact
that lowcarb is safe, effective, and without side effects any more
troublesome than any other major change in habits.  Go read the "side
effects" list on any prescription or OTC drug, and you'll see all sorts
of horrible things from rashes, to nausea, to stroke, heart failure, and
painful rectal itch...  yet these products are all judged safe and
effective when used appropriately, because the chances of those problems
are vanishingly small.


> Atkins even documents this in his "Diet Revolution" book, and says that
not
> everyone can tolerate this low an amount of carbohydrate.  (I cannot--I
barely
> can move on a very low carb diet.)  The Atkins "induction diet" (the
less than
> 30 carb diet) is only meant for the first two weeks.

Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs...   I know what Atkins says...
(see http://home.talkcity.com/TechnologyWay/wallyb).

Many people have problems starting "induction" (20, not 30 grams),
because they fail to heed Atkins' instructions on vitamin and mineral
supplements.  Personally, I think he goes a bit overboard (but then
again, he's an MD, and I'm not), but the electrolyte minerals can be
vital for some people during this phase.  The diuretic effects at the
beginning can cause a deficiency in these, particularly potassium, and
that can cause very unpleasant symptoms.  Eventually, the body will
settle down and get the electrolytes balanced on its own, but until then
the supplements can make an enormous difference.  Often this difference
is the key to someone getting through induction, or giving up on it.

After that "induction," Atkins' plan calls for increasing carbs to the
personal level of tolerance that will still allow you to lose weight.
However...  he also says that *IF* someone is happy and comfortable at 20
grams, there is no reason that they cannot safely stay there as long as
they like.  I don't know if that bit is in his latest editions, but I
have heard him make that very clear in a TV interview.

> A very active (athletic) person will need more carbohydrates than a
> sedentary one, and there are inborn differences as well.  We don't all
thrive on
> the same diet!

Yes and no...  carbohydrates can be very useful for someone expending
large amounts of energy in a short period, such as a marathon runner.
However, for more normal forms of sustained activity (strenuous or not),
a low carbohydrate diet will serve energy needs perfectly well, as long
as there is an adequate intake of proteins and fats.

No, we surely do not all thrive on the same diet, but that really has not
been your point.  You have dragged out just about every lie and
half-truth that has ever been spread about lowcarb (Dean Ornish's latest
fantasy is that it causes impotence...  it doesn't...  trust me...).  If
personal differences had been your point, you could have simply said that
*YOU* could not follow a very lowcarb diet, and have left it at that...

There are obviously millions of people who eat unlimited amounts of carbs
of all kinds and remain thin and healthy, and live long and happy lives.
I would not dream of telling them that they should even entertain the
thought of lowcarb, or paleo (let them eat all that filty grain, and
leave more meat for us...).  However, there are millions of other people
who suffer all obesity, and all sorts of diseases and discomforts due to
consumption of foods unnatural to the human metabolism, and a paleo,
lowcarb, or lowcarb paleo diet will be THE ANSWER for many of them.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.