MB wrote:
R u seriously obese?

Um no, what does that have to do with anything?

And what is "seriously obese" ?

I am on the Atkins diet for my health and for some weight loss.

MB

"da\/e /\/\0053-ST@1|\|" <spam@someone.else> wrote in message
news:3F3B4E7E.2AAC@someone.else...

MB wrote:
I just don't like that Atkins that tells you to eat no carbs, that's all.

GhostMouse wrote:
He was married (to a woman).
I say "was" since he died a month or so ago. (Slipped and fell).

GhostMouse wrote:
is that a fact. why thanks for deciphering.

To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Atkins
i said gay..not homosexual. and i was reffering to the diet no the person Atkins. pay attention to the
conversation.

Or are you just flaunting your ignorance and advertising your
hahahhaha.
you're funny as hail..word.
atkins is used in severely obese individuals, the ONLY time such an unnatural diet should even be attempted.
it's bad then too, but it's the lesser of 2 evils.
fyi, i'm not homophobic!

"da\/e /\/\0053-ST@1|\|" <spam@someone.else> wrote in message
news:3F409722.70B8@someone.else...
You're welcome. It's obvious you need some education.
I was. Perhaps if you had any type of grasp of the English language, one
could follow the conversation! Between your childish abbreviations and
offensive use of slang, trying to decipher your meaning is more effort than
one should have to make when reading a Usenet post. It's an impossibility
for a DIET to be "gay" in either sense of the word since something inanimate
like a diet cannot be happy, nor can it be homosexual! So the only
conclusion to be made was that you were referring to Atkins, because the
term "gay" has no other meaning, unless you are claiming it has a negative
connotation (i.e., bad), in which case you are acting in a homophobic way
because that type of ridiculous slang was born out of homophobic assholes
who believe someone who is gay must be bad. So make up your mind...either
you're homophobic or a total idiot for not knowing basic English OR
understanding offensive slang. Gee, what a choice!
Whatever that means??? Do the world a favor and get an education, learn to
write and grow up a bit.

Really? Then you're just an idiot...something you really should advertise
so blatantly.

I know what you mean when you say Atkins=GAY....
Perhaps not Gay, but certainly High Camp...

Its faddy, pernickety, obsessive and attention seeking


"da\/e /\/\0053-ST@1|\|" <spam@someone.else> wrote in message
news:3F432377.5A6E@someone.else...




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

As an after-thought..
If the Atkins Diet was a movie, it would be 'Priscilla, Queen of The
Desert...'

"da\/e /\/\0053-ST@1|\|" <spam@someone.else> wrote in message
news:3F432377.5A6E@someone.else...




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

TJU wrote:
It is popular at the moment, but I'm not sure something that has been
around for 30 years can be considered a fad.

Pernickety? (persnickety? if you meant that, I don't know how it would
apply?) Obsessive? Same.

Attention seeking: again, it's been around and ignored since my mom was
my age. When it began to get studied, it finally caught on. I think
perhaps the Atkins version of low carb is having a moment of glory. But
the spotlight to the role of carbs I think is for the overall good of
everyone. For decades fat was made to be the "bad guy", and yet obesity
went on the rise. I think the low carb trend has done a lot of good in
exposing how the body handles carbohydrates. And the role of fiber in
choosing healthier carbohydrates, and by focusing that the food pyramind
and rda of carbs is just too high for most of, unless we want blood
sugar problems later on in life. And by showing that good fats are good
for you, etc.
fwiw.

A lot of people have lost 100 or more pounds on this diet. They might be
high camp about it, but they deserve to be, don't they?

The only 'bad guy' in dieting is when total calories ingested is greater
than total calories expended.
'Fat' has always been considered the real culprit because it was perceived
that if you ate 'fat' you became 'fat'.

Any diet that combines healthy eating with reduced calorie intake will work,
especially when combined with increased exercise. A UK hospital has now
banned the Atkins diet for patients as they regard the imbalance as
unhealthy and contrary to the body's needs in a time of recovery.

My sister lost weight on a food combining diet that was also very popular
and 'faddy'.
Atkins, for many, is a fashion. It cannot and should not be maintained for
any extended period of time.
Good healthy eating, with decreased overall calorie intake, on the other
hand, can be maintained indefinitely.

(My other book, another work-in-progress, is on obesity and diet/diets
analysis......A BlockBuster-in-Waiting!)

"kita" <omg8pv4802@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:3F465804.1010303@sneakemail.com...

TJU wrote:
Exactly. Faddy is the best term for it!! The diet seems to come around every few decades only because it does
"seem" to work. I don't have time right now to explain..but you can read the entire mechanism, clearly
explained in Arnold's Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding, page 684.

TJU wrote:
You got me stumped. Haven't seen that one?

da\\/e /\\/\\0053-ST@1|\\| wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't referring to all low carb diets, just meant the Atkin's
plan wasn't a fad, since the book originally came out in the 70s.

Up to ten pounds can be water. I would not argue about that, that is
true. But water weight does not explain losses of 70, 80, 90 pounds.

All water weight will come off within the first week (as the body shifts
to lipolysis) and will return within a day or so of consuming over 100g
of carbs.
This does not explain losses of more than ten pounds. There are
thousands of people on the web (with journals and pictures) that have
lost a hundred pounds or more on Atkins.

da\\/e /\\/\\0053-ST@1|\\| wrote:
Wasn't it Snipes and Russell in drag?

Hi TJU,

Actually, if you have a metabolism problem, you might not lose weight even
if you are taking in fewer calories than you are exercising out. The bane
of those of us with thyroid issues.

ar

"TJU" <tju@NOSPAMrammy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f4673ae$1_4@127.0.0.1...

wait..so what's this lipolysis you talk about anyways..i looked it up in the dictionary, it says "The
hydrolysis of lipids". HUH??

doesn't the body come back to its normal calorie processing functions once you give it adequate carbs, like 100
grams? so then..why go through that initial one week? i'd be very interested to know if you experienced this
personally, since i'm such a skeptic and don't believe in all these "special" diets(low carb/atkins in
particular).

As a person with hardly any thyroid function left, I fully appreciate that
metabolism is a real issue. Before any weight loss programme, its useful to
find out if there are any background health problems.
I eat very lightly, have a physically demanding job at present and I'm still
10lbs heavier than I was before my thyroid problem.
Incidentally, I've moved over recently from thyroxine (T4) only treatment to
a combined T4 and T3 regime, using Liothyronine I buy over the net.
For one month, I'm going on a T3 only supplementation, as I suspect I have
Wilson's Syndrome.......

But, thyroid/metabolism issues aside, when calorie intake is less than
calorie expenditure, you WILL lose weight......regardless of diet fads and
trends.

"arlyn" <arlynsg@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:FYy1b.6357$Nc.3875697@news1.news.adelphia.net ...

TJU wrote:
why don't you have any thyroid function??
do u take artificial hormones in pill form?

Hi TJU,

I'm glad to hear that you're getting some T3 treatment. I no longer need T3
supplementation since I changed my diet.

I wish you luck.

ar


"TJU" <tju@NOSPAMrammy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f4739fa$1_2@127.0.0.1...

TJU wrote:

There is a study that showed that 1000 calories of pyramid diet (60%
carbs or whatever) versus 1000 calories of low carb, was NOT the same
weight loss.

I think this is the most interesting idea of all.

I will find the study and post it later on today or tomorrow. But in
essence, the same calories in did NOT equal the same weight loss, even
with equal exercise, etc. The low carb people lost MORE pounds, and a
larger percentage of the weight loss was fat. The higher carbs lost more
muscle.

So perhaps not all things are equal with calories, as previously thought.

Anyway, I'll look for the study later on, it's food for thought