I think the Atkins company producing the foods has filed for bankrupcy... the Atkins diet itself works though.

The official plan is to eat close to zero carbs the first two (?) weeks, thus putting your body in a state of ketosis, which is apparently a type of lypolysis - you burn fat faster. I just cut back on carbs right now and drink lots of water. Have lost 2 kgs in a week which is pretty good I think.

Except when you start reintroducing the carbs, most people tend to gain alot of the weight back. Also, i really believe while the adkins diet may help you lose weight, it's not healthy at all. It can't be healthy to completely neglect the largest portion of the food pyramid.

Well, no, they're not. The Atkins company has recently filed bankruptcy, namely because the diet's popularity has waned. I don't think you can call something a fad diet when it's not a fad.

I suppose I'm behind the times, then. However it was a fad a year or so ago, and by it's very definition, a fad is something with a fairly short lifespan that comes and goes like the tide. It might be back again, who knows.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Except when you start reintroducing the carbs, most people tend to gain alot of the weight back. Also, i really believe while the adkins diet may help you lose weight, it's not healthy at all. It can't be healthy to completely neglect the largest portion of the food pyramid.[/QUOTE]

It all depneds on how much energy you need from carbs. If your a very active person, you're going to need to eat more. If you aren't entirely active, you shouldn't be comsuming nearly as many carbohydrates. Unused, they turn to fat.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Except when you start reintroducing the carbs, most people tend to gain alot of the weight back. Also, i really believe while the adkins diet may help you lose weight, it's not healthy at all. It can't be healthy to completely neglect the largest portion of the food pyramid.[/QUOTE]

Well thing is, I don't do the hardcore type (0% carbs, which could be unhealthy), I just eat less of them. Also, less sugar. And I feel ****ing awesome again. It's been a tough year body-wise because of uni and the **** we eat there, but now I feel almost pre-uni again. But I dunno, maybe I haven't been doing it long enough.

I think if you find it necessary to exercise, you're either eating too much or you're spending the rest of your time being too lazy.

I think you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Well, there could be other things, maybe your metabolism isn't great, but my statement otherwise makes logical sense - we aren't naturally meant to exercise. It's just that the modern lifestyle makes it very easy to be lazy.

"I think if you find it necessary to exercise, you're either eating too much or you're spending the rest of your time being too lazy."

Wow...

Just wow...

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html

Oh, and out of all the fast food places out there, Wendy's is the healthiest. But still bad.

That is all.

Right, because before this modern society thing happened, people didn't work their asses off to feed themselves.

Sorry, I didn't make my point very clear - it depends on your definition of exercise. I meant exercise for no purpose other than exercise, which would exclude working your *** off to feed yourself, walking instead of driving, etc.

By the way, the rolleyes and other condescending responses are uncalled for.

Since you've clarified your point, I retract it.

And as my use of "I think" indicates, I'm fully aware that I might be wrong. I realised after I posted it that I worded it very poorly but I couldn't think of how to word it better.
Anyway, if there's a flaw in my thinking, please inform me.

Well your point is completly moot anyways. Just because it's possible for YOU to get adequate exercise simply by going about your daily life, doesn't mean others can do the same. If you have an office job your cooped up in the office all day for long hours then you will need to offset that with pure exercise. If you work a construction job you will get all the exercise you need on the job. So really your point is just meaningless.

And no offense but I think those condescending remarks were kind of called for. You did after all accuse everyone who exercises of being glutonous and lazy for the rest of their time, which is somewhat insulting.

About Atkins working, I lost over 55 lbs on the diet so i can say it definately worked for me.

In terms of the "McDonald's Diet"...



The fact that she ate 1,400 means that it means pretty much nothing that she ate at McDonalds.

Yeah but Atkins can REALLY mess up your heart for you later in life.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke] If you have an office job your cooped up in the office all day for long hours then you will need to offset that with pure exercise. [/QUOTE]

Is that actually enough to necessitate pure exercise, though, or is it because you park as close as possible to the door of the office building, always take the elevator to your office, etc?

Maybe my point of view is skewed due to the fact that I'm a compulsive pacer and find elevators nauseating.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]And no offense but I think those condescending remarks were kind of called for. You did after all accuse everyone who exercises of being glutonous and lazy for the rest of their time, which is somewhat insulting.[/QUOTE]

No, I just completely mangled the thought I was trying to express. It wasn't meant to be insulting at all. Even if it was, being condescending isn't exactly a civil way of reponding, and it encourages the escalation of a flame war.

Yeah true.. well I didn't do it so... :p

As for your point...I really don't think walking a little further to your office or taking the stairs instead of escalator is enough exercise that a person should naturally need. Think about how much more humans would NEED to exercise if we were primitive. Hunting, farming and what not all take a huge amount of exercise, exercise that is needed for humans to stay fit, and since in a civilized society, most people don't have the need do this, they need to find other ways to exercise, ie: sports, gym, running etc.

Also I think you have a skewed perspective due to very fast metabolism, mainly because I've seen pics of you and you are quite skinny. I am the same way and people with our genetics need a lot less exercise to stay slim then someone with slower metabolism, so it may seem unnecessary to us, but it's not for them.

Is it just me, or are Massassians starting to become more civil lately. If an argument starts to turn bitter, something usually apologizes, rephrases their statement, and offers a piece of light-hearted humor to alleviate the situtation.

Whatever it is, the atmosphere seems to have become a bit friendlier, and I'm enjoying it.

Pfft. Only such a ridiculous comment would come from you, DAFT VADER. get a grip!
[insert multiple rolleyes and additional slander here]

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Pfft. Only such a ridiculous comment would come from you, DAFT VADER. get a grip!
[insert multiple rolleyes and additional slander here][/QUOTE]
Wait a sec, he's not being friendly, no, HE'S NOT BEING VERY NICE!!!

FORGET SOCIAL NICETIES, YOU, ME, WE'LL SETTLE THIS OUTSIDE!!

Well, again I'm going to make my comments on today's youth, since I am one of them. This may not all pertain to the topic, but rather exercise/dieting in general.

Number One: Atkins diet is not for children under any circumstanced. My uncle did it (or something like it) when he was 14 and got tottaly messed up. And further into that, Atkins is not for permanent weight loss IMO. Because eating the carbs again will get you fatter if you don't exercise.

Number Two: America spends too much time in front of the TV. I'm a victim of it, and I'm paying for it. I've been trying to get out and run lately, and have been pretty successful. But just because you exercise does NOT mean you will lose weight. I actually GAINED weight, but I'm not sure how. My exercise stayed the same, and I drank plenty of water. Probably muscle or something.

Number Three: America's Youth eats too much junkfood. Again, I am a victim of this. I've been trying to cut down on the junky stuff, and I've been pretty successful. If more mothers/fathers would make meals for their family, America would be better IMO. Not only do sit-down meals provide better nutrition, they're great family discussion times. I'm also trying to stop eating in excess just because it tastes good. An example is when I go to some fastfood place and ask for a medium-sized meal instead of regular. I don't nee the medium, but I still get it.

Well, I've inserted $0.02 into this thread bank, so I wonder how much money's in it yet...

About the amount of exercise recommended, this is what the government states ([url]www.mypyramid.gov[/url])


"At a minimum, do moderate intensity activity for 30 minutes most days, or preferably every day. This is in addition to your usual daily activities. Increasing the intensity or the amount of time of activity can have additional health benefits and may be needed to control body weight.

About 60 minutes a day of moderate physical activity may be needed to prevent weight gain. For those who have lost weight, at least 60 to 90 minutes a day may be needed to maintain the weight loss. At the same time, calorie needs should not be exceeded. Children and teenagers should be physically active for at least 60 minutes every day, or most days."

I've never understood this though. I know so many people that maybe exercise 3-5 times a week and look fit as anything. They eat well, and they exercise. The new food pyramid makes it sound like unless you work out 60 minutes a day, you'll probably gain weight.

Uh, Flirb? You ever heard of a little something called genes. Some people aren't packing such good ones when it comes to staying thin. kthx.

I agree with Zloc about the horrible dietary habits people have these days. I've been there. Couple that with being really lazy, I put on some weight my first few years of college. Cutting all the regular sports activities, certainly didn't help either. I've since gotten myself out of that pattern, for the most part.

YOUR OPINION IS WRONG.

Freelancer--he already addressed that by saying some people's metabolisms are faster than others. Really, you're being condescending to him for no reason, and it irks me. It's Flirbnic...if it were me, I'd understand, but I think you need to understand who exactly you're acting holier-than-thou to.

She may have lost weight, but there is no way in hell she had all the nutrients she needed if all she did was eat at McDonalds. This is true with anything, whither fast food or not. But the article does highlight how important exercise is to maintaining physical health. As far as Atkins goes....I'll be laughing when all those peoples' kidneys fail.

...

I don't want to sound insensitive, and I'm all for the animal rights movement and stuff, but that "free the bears" ad depicts exactly what I'd like to do to some people that I don't like.

UHHH...did this make sense to anyone? I think you missed a couple words.

She ate 1,400 calories per day. To maintain her weight, she was supposd to be eating approximately 2,000 calories per day. It doesn't matter that she ate MacDonalds. She could have been eating all organic food or she could have been eating deep fried goose crap. If one eats less calories than one is supposed to, one is going to lose weight.

2000 calorie if that's her desired calorie input. It's different for people. According to one health site, mine is 2800 calories since I exercise roughly 30 minutes a day, am 20 and a male.