Atkins/Warrior Diets and Carbs

[Guest guest]

>You mention the newsletter. Is there a web site to find out more about

>the warrior diet and/or Ori?

>

>Janice

www.warriordiet.com, of course! ;-)

(There is a lot of info there ...)

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>> Christie can

correct me on both copyright issue and the Atkins diet if I'm wrong :- <<

LOL, well, since you ASKED...

About copyright you are wrong, actually. The law does not require any special

notice or action on the part of the writer for copyright to vest. The minute you

have created a work, be it a letter, article, essay, commentary, book, story,

poem, etc., copyright exists and belongs to the writer. Only if the writer

creates the work as part of their employment ( " Work for hire " ) or if a WRITTEN

contract exists spelling out a different copyright arrangement, does the creator

lose copyright.

A concept exists called " Fair use " that does outline some circumstances in which

copyrighted works can be copied or quoted, and it includes some grey areas.

Posting an entire work would definitely violate it, but on the other hand, if we

look at the whole discussion as " the work " instead of just your post, you could

probably get away with using a hefty hunk of someone's works without permission.

On the other, other hand, is the entire discussion " the work " or just your post?

I would say it's your post. Others would disagree. Either way, quoting the

entire work, IMO, is too much to even try to justify under fair use.

The best thing is to link to the article if you can, or quote it the way you'd

do in a term paper or book review - passages interspersed with commentary, not

including the whole work, etc. (as I'm about to do). Or ask permission, which

many writers will happily give.

Now, as to what the article says itself, I think that Ori is somewhat off-base

with some of his comments. As far as I know, the body can store glycogen in the

liver from other sources than carbs (basically, from protein), so I don't

believe that the different pathways really matter that much as regards glycogen

STORAGE. Once you have that glycogen there, what difference does it make how it

got there? But what really blows my mind is this:

" Dietary carbs are currently regarded as the culprit for most modern

human diseases including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and

neurodegenerative diseases. "

DIETARY FAT, not carbohydrate, is currently regarded as the culprit, plus animal

protein. The tiny minority of scientists or exerpts who blame carbs for these

things are routinely shunned as heretics, slammed by their colleagues, ridiculed

in the media. Yes, there is a current media spate of interest in so-called " low

carb " weight loss programs, but it's definitely not the norm. So when he says,

" low or no carb diets are now the darling of the media, " that may be limitedly

true, but doesn't change the overwhelming atmosphere of the weight loss

literature in general, which remains low fat, low calorie. Also, there is no

such thing as a " no carb diet " unless someone is advocating eating absolutely

nothing but meat. Even eggs and cream have some carbs.

He also says, " So it seems, the two most popular dietary methods are currently

carb or calorie restriction. Most, if not all diets are based on either one or

both methods. " He then goes on to lump them together as regards their various

real and alleged adverse impacts. For instance, he says " Bodybuilders, who try

to slim down via low calorie low carb diets, often face similar adverse symptoms

in addition to loss of muscle mass and strength. " But Atkins, which is the most

popular and widely-used low carb plan, is NOT a low calorie plan. To the

contrary! And I don't consider this a minor point.

But to me the most egregious error he makes in this article is associating

low-carb diets with increased hunger or sugar cravings. The exact opposite is

what happens, at least on Atkins, due to the high levels of dietary fat. I am

never hungry, I never crave sugar or carbs. That to me is the whole miracle and

blessing of Atkins. I am losing weight and feel fantastic, but never feel hungry

(except a day or two around my period) and never crave carbs. People who

" suffer " on Atkins with hunger or cravings invariably are not really following

the plan - they are eating too much protein, not enough fat, eating " fake foods "

and sugar alcohols and artificial sweeteners (which Ori quite rightly trashes),

and let me repeat NOT ENOUGH FAT which is IMO the biggest mistake most

low-carbers make. Societal conditioning against dietary fat is very deep. But

most of the problems he outlines are more a part of the low fat, low calorie

diets so many of us have suffered on for decades now than of high fat,

controlled carb plans such as Atkins.

He also doesn't include the difference between high fat, low carb plans such as

Atkins (which is NOT a zero carb, or even ultra-low carb plan - the very low

carbs are only at the very beginning of the weight loss portions of the plan)

and low or lower fat, low carb plans, such as the " South Beach Diet. " To call

Atkins JUST a low carb plan (which he doesn't do, in fact, he doesn't mention

Atkins at all here - just generic " low carb " plans - it's Betsy who mentioned

Atkins and that's why I discuss it), without taking into account the high fat

component IMO misses the boat. Betsy is absolutely right that the maintenance

and even the later weight loss phases of Atkins are not incompatible with higher

levels of carbs, even up to 100 or frankly, more... there IS no set limit of

carbs in any but the very first 14-day phase of Atkins. The number of carbs and

food you consume are entirely individually arrived at by each person.

The plan that seems MOST consistent with what Ori is recommending, though, is

Carbohydrate Addicts' Lifespan Program, which has the " Reward Meal " concept, and

also the balancing of proteins with carbs. Also reminds me of Schwartzbein's

diet. So while he is positioning himself as being against the common low-carb

plans, I think he's really reacting against the media presentation of these

plans, rather than what they actually say.

Ori also writes, " insulin sensitivity is necessary for optimum glucose

utilization and the activation of the pentose phosphate pathway. " If that is the

case, and I don't pretend to know, then it's also a sad fact that for many of

us, controlled-carb diets may be the only real way to restore insulin

sensitivity. Obviously those of you who have found symptoms of insulin

resistance abating while still eating higher levels of carbs don't understand

what it's like to be a " carb addict " or " carb sensitive " or whatever you want to

call it. I simply cannot eat starchy foods, period. It doesn't matter if they

include gluten or not. They trigger cravings and binge eating in me - potatos,

risotto, you name it. This way of eating, with its high levels of nutrient dense

veggies and lots of animal fat, is the exact perfect recipe for curing *me* of

insulin resistance. I couldn't stand eating the WD way (and I do realize no one

is trying to get me to, LOL). I love the rhythm and routine of preparing meals,

of eating a filling and hearty breakfast, of going to bed feeling a little

hungry. This is just like heaven on earth to me. So even if what Ori describes

is correct for him or for others, does not mean it's the answer for everyone.

The very presupposition of normal insulin sensitivity being required to activate

the pentose phosphate pathway makes his carb restriction theory, in my opinion,

valueless for anyone who already IS insulin resistant; first you have to do

something to restore that sensitivity. And as Betsy pointed out, if you do use

Atkins to lose body fat and restore insulin senstivity, the plan gradually

returns you to higher levels of carbs at that point anyway. So the conflict is,

in my opinion, not really that significant.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Thanks Betsy and Heidi for the web site.

Janice