And the only time that glucose levels will be routinely plummeting is when _fats are restricted_ in a LC diet.

It's definitely not going to happen on PP as written. It's not going to happen on Atkins as written. IMHO, we don't need to worry that a few (or several) more ounces of rib eye steak are going to "cross the line."

Really, I agree with you that it's a metabolic non-issue--until a diet like Kimkins comes along. At that point, all bets are off, unfortunately. If we don't give our bodies fat for energy, then our bodies will _depend_ on glucose for our energy needs.

If we make our bodies dependent on glucose and don't eat sufficiently of *either* fat or carbs, then there *will* be a constant conversion of protein to glucose to provide for basic energy needs.

Like you, I prefer Atkins on this issue: Eat the most delicious cuts of meat to appetite with enough fat (butter, real mayo, quality sauces, etc.) to make them taste really good. Add some veggies. Add a legal treat if you want one. Eat well and see the pounds go.... :-)

(It's not just Kimkins.... The LC diet doctors have urged us not to worry about fat and to include it liberally, but some new LC'ers have a hard time getting past all the bad and unscientific messages out there.)

The protein isn't going to turn to glucose if you are giving your body enough fat to burn. I've heard that one shouldn't go below basal metabolic needs but as far as I know, the bottom floor isn't really known. (The basal equation itself should be questioned, IMHO, given the fact that the body doesn't use every calorie the same way.)

I definitely don't know all the answers on this.... So this is just my collection of thoughts. You'll find what will work for you, I think.

I have been doing Atkins LC for four years. I have never counted calories or fat grams except for a rare meal and *one* day in all this time.

You can spend energy on your car in different ways--
1. You can wash it.
2. You can vacuum it.
3. You can fill it with gas.
4. You can fill it with oil.
5. You can repair it.
6. You can polish it.
7. You can beat it with a sledgehammer.

*All* of these apply energy to the car. We could measure the energy applied and make each of the 7 inputs equal according to the laws of physics. But no matter how much effort we made with the math, the results would never be equal. These energy inputs are not all "spent" the exact same way, and that makes all the difference in the world.

A calorie is a calorie. Sure. But some calories are burned, some are used for structure, and some are excreted, and different kinds of calories result in different kinds of hormonal responses. So not every calorie will have the same effect.

With Atkins, I eat as much meat as I need to satisfy hunger and enough fat to make it taste *really* good. I don't need to measure or count this. If a teaspoon of mayo is too dry and two tablespoons is a little gross and too oily, then I try a tablespoon.

If it looks and tastes just right to me, then I consider that just right. If a tablespoon of salad dressing leaves me feeling like the first half of the salad was tasty but the second half looks a little dry, then I just go ahead and add some more. (I buy the highest fat/lowest carb brands and flavors.)

I think we all have to do a little deprogramming at the beginning: "Fat is my friend." "Fat doesn't make me fat." "Fat tastes good." "Fat is healthy for me." "My skin hasn't been this soft for years." "My hair sure is getting shiny!" "I have a lot more energy than I used to have." Etc.

--->In this way of eating, hunger is not sinful and _satisfying_ hunger is not something that should make you feel guilty. If you are hungry, just eat some fat and protein. You didn't go off your program by eating something really delicious; that's what your program calls for!

Some days you'll eat more and others you'll eat a bit less. Over time, you learn the amounts of fat and protein that make you pleasantly full. You'll add veggies to make up most of your carb allowance. You won't worry about calculating, counting, and measuring.... That's Atkins.

OTOH, if you feel like KK has left you unsure of your appetite and not comfortable relying on your taste and appetite, then you could try Protein Power and get a little more guidance on portion sizes and amounts there. (I have the Groves book coming; I can add more info from it when it comes.)

Another thought, fwiw.... If your Kimkins meals were approximately normal-size meals, you could just eat as you have been and add in whatever kinds and amounts of fat maximize the flavors.

It might be helpful for those in KK recovery to remember that as reasonable as K's plans sounded, they definitely _didn't work for her_. They are not healthy or sustainable long-term. Add some fat, add some exercise (it may seem yucky at first--but that won't last), and you'll find what works best for you.

There's a difference between "want" and "hungry".

What you have is a pattern... and maybe you can break the pattern.

You have to replace the one habit (eating) with another habit... why not go for a walk, read a chapter in a book, have some tea/water... something that focuses on YOU.

If you've eaten a "decent dinner" at 6:30, are you done with dinner by 7:00?

There's nothing wrong with nuts per se, unless they're just perpetuating the habit.

Simon:

The hardest thing about low carb diets is the idea that you can really eat liberally of fat and protein. When you say "decent" dinner at 6:30, and you still want something at 7 or 8, that doesn't sound decent enough to me. Melodie is right in that nuts, in and of themselves, are not a problem on a low carb diet. SJM is right in that you could be seeing a pattern. I'll go one step further and suggest that regular snacking in general can certainly signal that you are not eating enough fat and protein at your meals to satisfy your hunger.

I reject any philosophy that in any way demeans hunger. Hunger is right. Hunger is your body communicating with you. Your muscles want more protein or your body wants more fatty acids to be transported to your mitochondria. If you are hungry, you should eat. The problem comes when you get full on carbohydrate containing things. It's very difficult to stop at just a handful of nuts, but that is something that you should never have to contemplate. If you want some nuts to provide flavor to some dish, or eat them with some fat or protein, then that's fine. Eating nuts all by themselves, in my view, is a problem.

Try this. Eat a 10 to 12oz ribeye steak and vegetables for dinner. Eat the steak first! Don't touch those vegetables until you finish that meat. If you are still hungry after finishing your vegetables, get some more meat. Let me know how long it takes for you to be hungry again.

I know for a fact that Atkins (Chapter 7), Protein Power (Page 5) and Dr. Groves' (see his website) plan are all based on studies of the Inuit Eskimos. These people at an insanely high fat diet. Where did the fat come from? Fatty meat. It's not that they covered their meat in butter, the meat was fatty. That's how you need to eat to get the same benefits that the Inuit enjoyed.

Best regards,

Charles

Charles,

I'm going to spin this on its head... since Atkins 2002 is vegetable-centric, I start with eating some vegetables, then some meat, then some more vegetables.

If one is going to get all the vegetables they need on Atkins 2002, then eating 12 ounces of meat first might not leave enough room for the vegetables.

Vegetables... meat... vegetables...

My humble opinion, of course!

What's not possible about it?

SJM:

I don't know where you get this. Atkins on any version is fat-centric. Chapter 7 of any volume talks about the metabolic advantage of low carb diets. Vegetables, even good ones, are merely carbohydrates with low indexes. However, if one overeats on vegetables they thereby force a greater glycemic load on their systems. Thus, you have to control their intake. Notice Rule 1 of Induction, "eat liberally of protein and fats, but only 2 cups of loosely packed vegetables." That does not say "vegetable-centric" to me. Even when you get on later stages, this formula does not change. Fifty percent of the allowable carbohydrate must be comprised of low glycemic fruits and vegetables. Protein and fat remain unrestricted.

The science of Atkins is this: Keckwick had 14 men whom he split into two groups. One group fasted for 7 days. The other 7 men at a high fat, low carb diet. Their diet was 1,000 calories, 10g of carbs. After 7 days, the first 7 men who fasted lost 21 pounds. Of the 21 pounds, 7.5 pounds was body fat. The remainder was lean body mass (muscle).

The 7 men who ate the high fat/low carb diet lost 14.5 pounds. 14 pounds was fat, the other .5 was muscle. Yes, you read that right. The men who ate the high fat diet lost twice as much body fat as the people who ate nothing at all.

There was a hormone found in the urine of these subjects that they named FMH (fat metabolizing hormone). They also found this substance in the urine of rats who also had the same results as the human subjects. They took the hormone from the human subjects' urine and injected it into the obese rats. The fat "melted like butter" off the rats.

It's fat that causes no change in Insulin and Glucagon levels, which Dr. Eades called, "the Ying and Yang of Metabolism. Protein and Fat both cause an indentical increase in both insulin and glucacon. Carbohydrate, in any form, causes an increase in Insulin and no change in Glucagon. It's Glucagon that releases fat from cells into the blood for use by tissues as energy. We need for Glucagon to be dominant in the body which makes our bodies burn fat.

Finally, all the major low carb plans are based on research conducted by Anderson and Steffansson, who lived with the Inuit Eskimos. The Inuit ate a high fat diet and were known for their legendary endurance. How did they obtain this fat? It was with fatty meat; whale, seal, etc. They had no heart disease, hypertension, or any of the other maladies of the "civilized world."

Therefore, to have the best success on a low carb plan, the foundation of the diet must be fatty cuts of meat, and controlled carbohydrates.

To use SJM's model, fatty meat, vegetables, fatty meat!

All the best,

Charles

Simon:

This is my point. There is no benign snacking that doesn't show up somewhere. All carbs must be counted, period. My argument is that when you are feeling a need to snack, that means you simply did not eat enough at your main meal. Look, I have a sedentary job also, but when I eat fatty meat and get full, I don't feel a need to snack.

Just try my suggestion one night and let me know what happened. If you eat enough of that ribeye, I'm telling you that you won't be hungry. I admit, this is the hardest part of the low carb diet to fathom; the fact that you can eat until full. Many of us have not had that sensation in years because we've been trained to fear food lest we get fat.

I can't make this statment about any carbohydrate-containing food. If you eat enough nuts, you will not lose weight. If you eat too much salad, you will not lose weight. The Ancient Egyptians ate a carbohydrate loaded diet. They didn't eat processed foods since they weren't invented yet, they ate predominatly vegetables. Look what happened to them! Especially, their teeth -- yuck.

Obesity in Ancient Egypt

Charles

No need to correct you, Krishna, you hit the nail on the head. The calories are irrelevant. As I've explained in other posts in this thread, it's the fat that causes the weight loss, not the calories. In all fairness, you can lose weight while restricting calories, but that's losing body mass, and very little fat. When you provide the body with enough calories, and plenty of fat, you burn fat, increase your energy and gain better health.

Charles

Kimpossible:

Yes, it is possible to cure the ill of snacking in one day. Eat more fat and protein.

In all seriousness, yes, nuts can be "better than the alternative" and I would certainly encourage someone to do that rather than giving up in frustration and consuming a ton of carbs.

However, I'm suggesting to you that there is no difference in hunger or the "need to snack." If you want to eat, there's a reason behind it. You are either hungry or you are not. Now, if you're talking about a "craving", that's another reason to reduce your carb level and eat more protein and fat to remove the cravings. Nuts and cheeses, which contain carbs, can only increase your cravings, not satisfy them. Fat and protein are self-limiting. You can't overeat on them. If you must "snack", how about some beef jerky, some summer sausage? They have some sugars and maybe even nitrates, but that seems to be a better alternative than carbohydrates.

Charles

Well pretty boring actually. I'm building up some new web pages to try and sell some houses. The market is flat on it's butt here, which is unusual for Atlanta. We normally are pretty recession proof. I do all the creative stuff, and I'm a Graphic Designer. Web pages are another world and because I'm still learning I have to stick with the "out of the can" stuff.

A friend of mine works at a hospital and tells me when somebody needs a ride to the hospital for some minor complaint they just call 911. I was at the Vet's office the other day and a elderly lady was there to put her old sick cat down and wanted to stay while they did it. When it was done she collapsed and had a stroke right in the vets office. A lady that works there was actually able to get in her car and bring the paramedics back from the fire station before another lady in the vets office was taken off hold by the 911 dispatcher. What's sad is those people clog up the system for people who are really in need of the help.

SJM:

I'm sorry, I don't think anyone is "ignoring vegetables." My point is that the opposite is true when it comes to snacking in general. It's easy to overeat on vegetables, nuts and fruits, when they are not part of the meal, proper. Valerie hit it on the head. Those things are condiments and they must be controlled. Whereas, fat and protein remain unrestricted in any phase, save by the appetite. There's no need to count them or consider their amounts because they are "self-limiting."

You might say, yeah, but if you eat that fatty piece of meat and save the vegetables until after, you may not ever get to your vegetables. Well, there's always a danger, but I think most rational minds will agree that eating until full is the hardest concept to master on Atkins. We have vegetarians the world over telling us that red meat is bad and vegetables are good. Yet, every civilization that based their diet on vegetables, didn't last very long. Check out Ancient Egypt:

Obesity in Ancient Egypt

Many people eat to what they feel is comfortable because they've convinced themselves that the little bit of food they allowed on Kimkins, or the pathetic low fat food they had on Weight Watchers, was just enough. Now that the chains have been removed, as far as fat and protein are concerned, it's still difficult to fathom that one can actually eat until full.

I'm amazed each day when someone says, hey, I ate so much, and it was so good, and I was so full! That's beautiful to witness. The truth is, they didn't get fat from too much food, they got fat from the wrong types of food. I still overeat until this day. I went to Golden Corall for lunch, and I was full from 1:00, all the way to 7:30 tonight, when I finally ate dinner. I'll still be 161 (if not less) in the morning!

All the best,

Charles