Atkins' diet bores people thin.

"Martin W. Smith" wrote

But the statement made was about what LCers "claim". It makes no sense
(or
very little) to say that eating anything can boost "energy expediture,"
but
the claim that is typically made by newbie LCers is that they have more
energy, so I addressed the comment in that sense. Don't treat statements
made by lay people as precise -- and who knows who got the wording fouled
up -- it could be the researcher since the other comment made about
losing
weight due to boredom is nonsense too.

It is important to correct such false claims, because people who don't
know the truth will read them and assume they are written correctly.
The claim made in the article is very different from what LCers
actually claim.

There's a language/ jargon disjunct in this conversation that is driving me
nuts. The original article referred to "energy" in the usual metabolic
sense, as typically seen in the scientific literature, in which "energy" is
synonymous with "calories" . It's pretty clear from the context that is
what was meant. I think they were referring to the claims for "metabolic
advantage" associated with a low-calorie diet in which the LC dieter can eat
unlimited and still show weight loss or greater weight loss.than someone on
a higher-carb diet at the same calorie ("energy") level. That's been debated
on this ng over and over. There are some studies that do indeed show better
weight/fat loss on lc diets, compared to dieters eating the same number of
calories but a higher proportion of carbs and less fat.

What most people here seem to mean when they refer to "energy" is the
feeling of being able to do more work, partly a physical and partly a
psychological phenomenon. It's a "non-scientific", subjective and kind of
nebulous thing. But we all know it when we feel it. Many people, including
myself, do have the feeling of much more of this subjective "energy" when
they become established on a lc diet, although capacity for exercise,
especially anaerobic and high intensity exercise may be somewhat impaired.
The extent to which training on lc helps with higher-intensity aerobic
exercise has also been debated and probably varies from person to person.

This discussion would have made a lot more sense if people had first
established definitions of key terms. As is, you've been kind of arguing
past one another.

HG

"Martin W. Smith" wrote

But the statement made was about what LCers "claim". It makes no sense
(or
very little) to say that eating anything can boost "energy expediture,"
but
the claim that is typically made by newbie LCers is that they have more
energy, so I addressed the comment in that sense. Don't treat statements
made by lay people as precise -- and who knows who got the wording fouled
up -- it could be the researcher since the other comment made about
losing
weight due to boredom is nonsense too.

It is important to correct such false claims, because people who don't
know the truth will read them and assume they are written correctly.
The claim made in the article is very different from what LCers
actually claim.

There's a language/ jargon disjunct in this conversation that is driving me
nuts. The original article referred to "energy" in the usual metabolic
sense, as typically seen in the scientific literature, in which "energy" is
synonymous with "calories" . It's pretty clear from the context that is
what was meant. I think they were referring to the claims for "metabolic
advantage" associated with a low-calorie diet in which the LC dieter can eat
unlimited and still show weight loss or greater weight loss.than someone on
a higher-carb diet at the same calorie ("energy") level. That's been debated
on this ng over and over. There are some studies that do indeed show better
weight/fat loss on lc diets, compared to dieters eating the same number of
calories but a higher proportion of carbs and less fat.

What most people here seem to mean when they refer to "energy" is the
feeling of being able to do more work, partly a physical and partly a
psychological phenomenon. It's a "non-scientific", subjective and kind of
nebulous thing. But we all know it when we feel it. Many people, including
myself, do have the feeling of much more of this subjective "energy" when
they become established on a lc diet, although capacity for exercise,
especially anaerobic and high intensity exercise may be somewhat impaired.
The extent to which training on lc helps with higher-intensity aerobic
exercise has also been debated and probably varies from person to person.

This discussion would have made a lot more sense if people had first
established definitions of key terms. As is, you've been kind of arguing
past one another.

HG

"Martin W. Smith" wrote

But the statement made was about what LCers "claim". It makes no sense
(or
very little) to say that eating anything can boost "energy expediture,"
but
the claim that is typically made by newbie LCers is that they have more
energy, so I addressed the comment in that sense. Don't treat statements
made by lay people as precise -- and who knows who got the wording fouled
up -- it could be the researcher since the other comment made about
losing
weight due to boredom is nonsense too.

It is important to correct such false claims, because people who don't
know the truth will read them and assume they are written correctly.
The claim made in the article is very different from what LCers
actually claim.

There's a language/ jargon disjunct in this conversation that is driving me
nuts. The original article referred to "energy" in the usual metabolic
sense, as typically seen in the scientific literature, in which "energy" is
synonymous with "calories" . It's pretty clear from the context that is
what was meant. I think they were referring to the claims for "metabolic
advantage" associated with a low-calorie diet in which the LC dieter can eat
unlimited and still show weight loss or greater weight loss.than someone on
a higher-carb diet at the same calorie ("energy") level. That's been debated
on this ng over and over. There are some studies that do indeed show better
weight/fat loss on lc diets, compared to dieters eating the same number of
calories but a higher proportion of carbs and less fat.

What most people here seem to mean when they refer to "energy" is the
feeling of being able to do more work, partly a physical and partly a
psychological phenomenon. It's a "non-scientific", subjective and kind of
nebulous thing. But we all know it when we feel it. Many people, including
myself, do have the feeling of much more of this subjective "energy" when
they become established on a lc diet, although capacity for exercise,
especially anaerobic and high intensity exercise may be somewhat impaired.
The extent to which training on lc helps with higher-intensity aerobic
exercise has also been debated and probably varies from person to person.

This discussion would have made a lot more sense if people had first
established definitions of key terms. As is, you've been kind of arguing
past one another.

HG

Martin W. Smith wrote in message
Feeling you had less energy and feeling you have more energy say
nothing about whether eating less sugar and more fat boosts energy
expenditure. Your statement and the alleged claim are not at all the
same.


Let's not forget that there is more than one type of energy. Work is
one type of energy and most of us agree that while on LC diets, at
least at first, we are not as inclined to do as much endurance
exercise (but weight training is not a problem). Thus we expend less
energy doing work if we did endurance training before.

But we can also expend energy through heat. If you recall Magellan's
crew noticed Indians at frozen Tierra del Fuego who were nude and yet
were not bothered by the cold. And they were surely eating a low-carb
diet by force.

Martin W. Smith wrote in message
Feeling you had less energy and feeling you have more energy say
nothing about whether eating less sugar and more fat boosts energy
expenditure. Your statement and the alleged claim are not at all the
same.


Let's not forget that there is more than one type of energy. Work is
one type of energy and most of us agree that while on LC diets, at
least at first, we are not as inclined to do as much endurance
exercise (but weight training is not a problem). Thus we expend less
energy doing work if we did endurance training before.

But we can also expend energy through heat. If you recall Magellan's
crew noticed Indians at frozen Tierra del Fuego who were nude and yet
were not bothered by the cold. And they were surely eating a low-carb
diet by force.

JPG wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html

The low-carbohydrate Atkins diet may help shed excess pounds simply because it
is so boring, a research paper claims today.


Danish nutritionists say the "monotony and simplicity" of the regime could
suppress the appetite and reduce a dieter's calorie intake.

LOL! If I counted up the different types of foods I eat now as compared
to three years ago, I think the variety has gone up at least ten-fold, if
not more. I'm eating and enjoying vegetables I probably couldn't have
even identified three years ago ;-)

Both my wife and I enjoy cooking and I can't say that monotony of LC has
been much of a problem at our house.

Dan
325/199/180
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes

JPG wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html

The low-carbohydrate Atkins diet may help shed excess pounds simply because it
is so boring, a research paper claims today.


Danish nutritionists say the "monotony and simplicity" of the regime could
suppress the appetite and reduce a dieter's calorie intake.

LOL! If I counted up the different types of foods I eat now as compared
to three years ago, I think the variety has gone up at least ten-fold, if
not more. I'm eating and enjoying vegetables I probably couldn't have
even identified three years ago ;-)

Both my wife and I enjoy cooking and I can't say that monotony of LC has
been much of a problem at our house.

Dan
325/199/180
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes

Before low-carbing, my diet was pretty boring as well. Cereal w fruit for
breakfast, sandwiches/bagel for lunch, and a standard 4 color supper.

I think every diet has its "mainstays", and everyone has their general
staple foods that they rely on. Low carb is no different. I still have my
mainstays and vary it a little every now and then.

Before low-carbing, my diet was pretty boring as well. Cereal w fruit for
breakfast, sandwiches/bagel for lunch, and a standard 4 color supper.

I think every diet has its "mainstays", and everyone has their general
staple foods that they rely on. Low carb is no different. I still have my
mainstays and vary it a little every now and then.