I'm not fat, I'm poisoned.

So it's been about three weeks since I restarted an actual, no-kidding
Induction. I dropped another two pounds as of this morning and I'm
feeling a little awed. During the past three weeks I've read the new
Taubes book and reread DANDR and eventually, after dropping an easy
eleven pounds( actually I'm not sure about this because three weeks
ago I couldn't even look at the number without some soft focus) , I
was struck with a thought.

I realized that a low carb protocol is not a weight loss diet at all.
Weight loss is the thing that everybody wants because they want to
look all sexy in their after picture but being fat, it seems to me, is
really a symptom of systemic poisoning brought on by refined sugar and
carbohydrates.

I have to admit I never looked at it that way before. When I started
Atkins with full seriousness and intent five years ago it was just
because I couldn't climb the stairs without hauling myself up by the
banister. I can't even begin to recount all the ways that I felt
terrible.

So Gary Taubes asks in this insanely informative book -- are people
lethargic because they're overweight and out of shape? Or is it
because they're actually in various states of ill health brought on by
refined carbohydrates, insulin resistance, and the destructive effects
of this stuff on the body system?

I now see that as an excellent question to which I know the answer.

I think what's really happening during the first few weeks or even
months of a carbohydrate restricted protocol is that peoples' whole
bodies are healing and recalibrating. It takes time for insulin
receptors to become more sensitive. It takes time for the endocrine
system to start working appropriately. *That's* why, during
Induction,you don't have to watch calories. You might think you're
losing " twenty pounds in two weeks!!!!" but really you are changing
the endocrine response in your body and any weight loss is
incidental.

!

And that's why my nutritional needs changed over time. In the
beginning, it's extremely low carb -- near the end and at maintenance
it changes to something like middle carb-more-exercise-because-you-
actually-want-to-and-no.sugar.ever. It was easy to cut calories when I
needed to because I wasn't hungry for them anyway, but I really
wonder: If I had had more patience and just stayed lowcarb without
counting, would I have reached goal anyway?

I think I might be turning into one of those annoying lowcarbers who
do it " for health reasons". Is that weird or what?

The c-wire news of the day recap:

1. I lost 13-15 pounds in three weeks( not sure), but regardless I
feel whole lot better.
2. I won a DVD player at the grocery store.

c
No Sugar = Good Mojo

wrote
I realized that a low carb protocol is not a weight loss diet at all.
Weight loss is the thing that everybody wants because they want to
look all sexy in their after picture but being fat, it seems to me, is
really a symptom of systemic poisoning brought on by refined sugar and
carbohydrates.

I certainly won't argue with this notion.

So Gary Taubes asks in this insanely informative book -- are people
lethargic because they're overweight and out of shape?

Well, those things do come together....

Or is it
because they're actually in various states of ill health brought on by
refined carbohydrates, insulin resistance, and the destructive effects
of this stuff on the body system?


That, IMO, is certainly part of the issue. Carbs, IMO, are a type of food
that we [modern humans] don't really need in great amounts because we're too
inactive, as a whole. The body burns carbs [leaving aside boose] first
because if they hang around too long they cause damage. But, it can put
those carbs to get use if the body is working hard. Otherwise, it can't and
over time they make us ill. IMO.

I now see that as an excellent question to which I know the answer.

I think what's really happening during the first few weeks or even
months of a carbohydrate restricted protocol is that peoples' whole
bodies are healing and recalibrating. It takes time for insulin
receptors to become more sensitive. It takes time for the endocrine
system to start working appropriately. *That's* why, during
Induction,you don't have to watch calories. You might think you're
losing " twenty pounds in two weeks!!!!" but really you are changing
the endocrine response in your body and any weight loss is
incidental.

!

And that's why my nutritional needs changed over time. In the
beginning, it's extremely low carb -- near the end and at maintenance
it changes to something like middle carb-more-exercise-because-you-
actually-want-to-and-no.sugar.ever. It was easy to cut calories when I
needed to because I wasn't hungry for them anyway, but I really
wonder: If I had had more patience and just stayed lowcarb without
counting, would I have reached goal anyway?

I think I might be turning into one of those annoying lowcarbers who
do it " for health reasons". Is that weird or what?

No. I'm glad you're back in here. Posts like this are good!


The c-wire news of the day recap:

1. I lost 13-15 pounds in three weeks( not sure), but regardless I
feel whole lot better.
2. I won a DVD player at the grocery store.

c
No Sugar = Good Mojo

Cool beans, baby!

wrote:
I think what's really happening during the first few weeks or even
months of a carbohydrate restricted protocol is that peoples' whole
bodies are healing and recalibrating. It takes time for insulin
receptors to become more sensitive. It takes time for the endocrine
system to start working appropriately. *That's* why, during
Induction,you don't have to watch calories. You might think you're
losing " twenty pounds in two weeks!!!!" but really you are changing
the endocrine response in your body and any weight loss is
incidental.

I haven't read Taubes book just yet, but I've thought this about
induction for years. It's withdrawal. The reason you're not supposed
to restrict calories is cause you have massive cravings and are almost
certainly going to overeat the first few days. You're not supposed to
lose fat during induction, it's whole purpose is to switch your
biochemistry over, cut the cravings and THEN you have appetite
suppresion kicking in and weight loss is relatively easy.


And that's why my nutritional needs changed over time. In the
beginning, it's extremely low carb -- near the end and at maintenance
it changes to something like middle carb-more-exercise-because-you-
actually-want-to-and-no.sugar.ever. It was easy to cut calories when I
needed to because I wasn't hungry for them anyway, but I really
wonder: If I had had more patience and just stayed lowcarb without
counting, would I have reached goal anyway?

I think if we were eating the ideal maintenance diet, we'd all be
ideally healthy... just might take some time to get there. Most people
aren't that patient though.

My husband told me a few months back... he'd gained 5 lbs a year for 10
years eating crap and decided to do something about it. I told him if
he just cut out the soda and sugar in his coffee, that itself would
likely cause him to lose 5 lbs a year for the next decade. But he
decided that was too slow, so cut out almost all junk food, which will
get him there even more rapidly.

Most folks would probably do fine even just cutting out the white
stuff... sugar, flour, rice, potatoes. And for optimum health,
replacing that stuff mostly with fresh nonstarchy vegetables and
low-sugar fruits. That would likely get nearly everyone to their ideal
weight sooner or later.

People tend to take a long time to put the weight on, but they want to
take it off immediatly. Eating how you're going to eat at maintenance
takes longer, but has the advantage of you knowing how to eat forever
once you do get there.


I think I might be turning into one of those annoying lowcarbers who
do it " for health reasons". Is that weird or what?

I dunno; I've been weird a long time myself.


--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

On Oct 13, 7:28 pm, Jackie Patti wrote:
wrote:
I think what's really happening during the first few weeks or even
months of a carbohydrate restricted protocol is that peoples' whole
bodies are healing and recalibrating. It takes time for insulin
receptors to become more sensitive. It takes time for the endocrine
system to start working appropriately. *That's* why, during
Induction,you don't have to watch calories. You might think you're
losing " twenty pounds in two weeks!!!!" but really you are changing
the endocrine response in your body and any weight loss is
incidental.

I haven't read Taubes book just yet, but I've thought this about
induction for years. It's withdrawal. The reason you're not supposed
to restrict calories is cause you have massive cravings and are almost
certainly going to overeat the first few days. You're not supposed to
lose fat during induction, it's whole purpose is to switch your
biochemistry over, cut the cravings and THEN you have appetite
suppresion kicking in and weight loss is relatively easy.

Hrm. You go two weeks taking your insulin levels from chronically
elevated
down to low. The implication is that your glucagon level goes up. And
any
other hormones you might be running can also draw energy from your
fat,
either stored fat or dietary fat and protein. It seems like a recipe
to reduce
fat in storage to me. At least that's my Taubes induced
understanding.
That said, The fast stuff out is the water, that the carbs/insulin
aren't
causing you to hold anymore. That's bonus, in my book.

Jackie Patti writes:

I haven't read Taubes book just yet, [snip]

It'll make you mad. There are fairly recent discoveries about blood
particles and hormones and so on that have made what Taubes calls the
"carbohydrate hypothesis" more obvious in recent years; but the basic
fact that carbohydrates encourage obesity, heart disease, and diabetes
(among other things) has been staring researchers in the face for as
long as they've been studying those things. As we say in the country,
"If it'us a snake, it'd'a bit 'em." Even the recent work that's been
done could have happened a lot sooner if the people with the purse
strings hadn't spent practically every nickel looking for proof that
dietary fat was bad.

I think if we were eating the ideal maintenance diet, we'd all be
ideally healthy... just might take some time to get there. Most
people aren't that patient though.

It certainly looks that way. Taubes cites several "primitive" societies
where missionary doctors found an almost complete absence of cancer,
heart disease, and diabetes, but saw those diseases all climb as soon as
the local people started eating Western refined food. The people of
Tokelau, who got more than 70% of their calories from coconut and more
than 50% from fat (90% of it saturated) until the rest of the world
showed up and started importing sugar and grain are a great example.
It's mostly the usual story: isolated group of people have excellent
health on a paleo-type diet; Western colonists or missionaries come in
with their own supplies of food; everything goes to Hell on a gurney.
But then the best part:

The only conspicuous departure from these trends was in 1979, when
the chartered passenger-and-cargo ship /Cenpac Rounder/ ran aground
and the islanders went five months without food or fuel delivery.
"There was no sugar, flour, tobacco and starch foods," reported the
/New Zealand Herald/, "and the atoll hospitals reported a shortage
of business during the enforced isolation. It was reported that the
Tokelauans had been very healthy during that time and had returned
to the pre-European diet of coconut and fish. Many people lost
weight and felt very much better including some of the diabetics."

So while the history is making me mad, it's also making me very
optimistic for the future. We don't have to have all these "diseases of
civilization," at least not at the epidemic levels we have them now.
The solution is known, and it's been known for a century or more. And
regardless of what anyone else does, I know I'm lowering my own chance
for chronic disease *drastically* by eating this way. That makes me
happy.

Most folks would probably do fine even just cutting out the white
stuff... sugar, flour, rice, potatoes. And for optimum health,
replacing that stuff mostly with fresh nonstarchy vegetables and
low-sugar fruits. That would likely get nearly everyone to their ideal
weight sooner or later.

Probably so. The societies where everyone was fit and no one ever got
cancer or heart disease weren't necessarily very-low-carb, but what
carbs they got weren't refined. One study showed a significant
improvement in health if people got under 600 calories a day from
carbs, which would probably happen for most people if they just cut out
the "white" stuff.



--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz