So confused!

[fenella]

I have been on every diet known to man. I know that I do better when I cut the sugar. I got within 10 lb. of goal a few years ago after losing 50 lb. Now I'm up 70!!! I go back and forth as to which WOE to follow. I get conflicting information. Right now, I feel that South Beach and PP are the two that make the most sense. I feel that SB is a great plan, but I have trouble with portion control. I like that I don't have to count and carry my books everywhere with SB. I do tend to eat things that are "bad" like chicken wings when I go out with friends on PP because it is within the limits, and I feel like I focus more on nutrition when I'm on SB (I know that I could do the same on PP, but it is just how I know I do when I follow them)...on the other hand, I don't cheat as much on PP because I don't feel like I'm cheating and enjoy richer foods. I have read articles about how low-carb diets like PP deplete glycogen, and cause the loss of muscle mass. I have also read articles that say that that is wrong.
My main concern is that for the first time, I have very high cholesterol. I've been eating way too much fast food and need to get this under control. I really don't want to go to on cholesterol meds. My mom had a heart attack at 50, and has had a triple bypass. I'm headed down the same road.
This may sound strange, but I am actually scared to change my eating habits. I am scared of failing again. I'm scared that I will waste time by making the wrong choice and end up fatter than ever.
I know that I am posting on the PP forum, so obviously everyone here is going to say to go with PP. Any facts or articles to help me decide?

[fenella]

I forgot to mention, I did end up with a small kidney stone last time I did pp. I don't know if it is related to the diet or not, but I never had one before. I don't think I was drinking enough water.
Anyway, perhaps I can develop a "hybrid" of the two? That is, try to go for leaner meats, etc. and maybe up the carb count a little?

[mcsblues]

Hi Fenella.

If I can sum up your situation, you know you need to change, doing what you are doing is making things worse. You want to know that the next step you take is in the right direction and that it will lead to a lasting solution. Right?

I suggest you read at least one of the Eades books - start either with PP or their 30 day book. The more you read the more convinced you will be that PP is based on rock solid science (and a fair bit of SB ... isn't ;)) When you really "know" this, you will find it much easier to stick to the plan, and much easier to dismiss nonsense like the glycogen/muscle mass thing (a higher protein diet actually protects muscle mass - the low fat nonsense does the reverse).

OK step two (and the reason the 30 day book wouldn't be a bad place to start) is giving this an honest try for a few months. If you are not feeling much better health wise as well as lighter long before you finish that test ... you aren't doing it right!:p (and we are here to help). Ok?

The counting, and lists thing gets much easier the longer you do it. Honestly in no time you will hardly need to think about it. Oh and the 30 day book gives you menus ... for 30 days!

As you say, all of us will tell you that low carb in the Eades style is the very best thing you can do for your health, and there are no shortage of amazing success stories here to attest to that. But the first thing you need to do ... is convince yourself. Yes?

And be sure to ask as many questions as you like.:)

[mcsblues]

The kidney stone would have formed long before you started PP. Mike (Eades) was only saying the other day that he treated thousands of patients with his plan ... and NEVER had one develop kidney stones.

One thing he does suggest is to take potassium supplements for the first few weeks as your body adjusts - this overcomes any issues asociated with electrolye depletion associated with the mildly diuretic impact of the diet in this period.

And don't even consider doing a low fat slightly higher carb version! Repeat after me, good fat is good for you!:p

[amdawson]

it sounds like you may be stuck with an inaccurate view of "good nutrition." you make it sound like when you eat rich, satisfying low-carb foods like PP people would eat, you automatically feel like it's less nutritious than whatever kind of grain-based rabbit food they'd have you eating on those other diets.

further evidence that your view is skewed: muscle mass is made of--you guessed it--PROTEIN, not glycogen (sugar)! So depleting your body's sugar does not deplete your muscle mass. In fact, an adequate protein diet is really the only reasonable way to MAINTAIN your muscle mass.

see how messed up everybody's arguments are? see how it's so easy to be misinformed?

one of the biggest things to realize with PP is this:

nutrition does NOT = starving yourself
healthy eating does NOT = being miserable
red meat, chicken meat, other meat does NOT = bad for you

That's a good reason you should read a PP book, to start to change that thought pattern (i don't blame you - it's hammered into all of us from a very young age and it is the official gov't stance too)

So if you want to do PP, you have to accept the fact that eating steak and cheese is healthy!

one word of caution, however. a low-carb diet has to be followed in earnest. it's not difficult to do, but a half-hearted attempt at low-carbing may result in just eating a bunch of steak, cheese, cream, butter, etc. IN ADDITION TO the sugar/carbs in your old diet. and if you do that, you will most certainly be worse off than you would be if you just stuck with a rabbit food diet.

In short, low-carb is basically this: enjoyable and satisfying because of what we CAN eat (proteins, fats), effective for weight loss/cholesterol/etc. because of what we DON'T eat (sugar)

if you give it a try, try it for 2 months. the first 2-3 weeks are the hardest as your body adjusts and craves carbs. but if you make it through 2 months, you should be golden.

good luck! welcome!

[maxlharris]

... I have read articles about how low-carb diets like PP deplete glycogen, and cause the loss of muscle mass. I have also read articles that say that that is wrong.

You do deplete glycogen. This has nothing to do with muscle mass. It has to do with how much water your retain. Since muscles can hold a lot of water, you can have some amount of muscle mass drop in the initial days of doing a ketogenic diet (which PP is, and which SB is not, not really). That amount is liquid drain off. You aren't losing the muscle, but it will weigh less because you have drained off some liquid from them. It is not problematic in the least.

My main concern is that for the first time, I have very high cholesterol.

Define very high. Composition would be good to know when assessing your cholesterol. You might (re)read the chapter in Protein Power about cholesterol. Or in Protein Power Life Plan. Either will help you to understand your numbers better, and to understand how protein power will fix your problem, assuming you have one, more effectively than South Beach will.

I've been eating way too much fast food and need to get this under control.

Fast food is major feature of neither Protein Power nor South Beach. You will do better doing either program than eating fast food.

This may sound strange, but I am actually scared to change my eating habits. I am scared of failing again. I'm scared that I will waste time by making the wrong choice and end up fatter than ever.

I would be scared to continue eating a lot of fast food. That's what got you to the dilemma you are facing right now.

Let me simplify it a bit for you:
If you work protein power through maintenance, you will lose weight, improve your cholesterol numbers and feel a lot healthier.

If you work South Beach through to maintenance, you will lose weight, improve your cholesterol numbers and feel a lot healthier.

If you work McDonalds, you will not lose weight, you will probably make your cholesterol numbers look a lot worse, and you will not understand well being from your own experience, except as a memory.

That is harsh, but that's the reality of the situation. If I had to pick something to be afraid of, it wouldn't be failure or wrong choice, it would be the progression of the problems you are developing by doing what you are currently doing.

Pick the program that works for you, and fits with your life. They are both pretty good (I think PP is better, but it fits me a lot better than SB). If you want papers on the efficacy of ketogenic diets, you have google. I do not know that there have been extensive studies of South Beach against anything else, but the science is mostly sound, and it will clearly be an improvement over what you are doing now.

[gitfiddle]

I have been on every diet known to man. I know that I do better when I cut the sugar. I got within 10 lb. of goal a few years ago after losing 50 lb. Now I'm up 70!!! Sounds like my story, fenella, only my initial loss was 98lb, which I gained back and then some.
My main concern is that for the first time, I have very high cholesterol. I've been eating way too much fast food and need to get this under control. I really don't want to go to on cholesterol meds. My mom had a heart attack at 50, and has had a triple bypass. I'm headed down the same road. I believe that triglycerides are a more accurate predictor to heart disease than cholesterol. It's hard to find a doctor who isn't of the old school. I respectfully declined the cholesterol meds several times. He can't justify it, but he likes my lab reports.
This may sound strange, but I am actually scared to change my eating habits. I am scared of failing again. I'm scared that I will waste time by making the wrong choice and end up fatter than ever.
You're looking for a sure thing, which no one can guarantee, and you appear paralyzed. Take action. Pick one that you can live with and follow it to the letter, at least for a couple of months as amdawson suggested, before you even consider modifying it. :)

Anything you do will require patience and a bit of blind faith until you see some results.

[razgarcia]

My concern with SB is that Dr. Agatston is a bit of a lipophobe when it comes to saturated fats. In addition, he seems to push high fiber/low GI foods. This is true of some of the food products I've seen with the Souch Beach label, such as the Diet Wraps (made by Santa Fe Tortilla Co. right here in New Mexico) which have 17g ecc/wrap (25g carb - 8g fiber). That's way too much ecc for me for a single meal. And, of course, no sat. fat. I mean, everyone here knows that the best tortillas (if you must one, I don't) are made with lard.

In effect, PP is a superior WOE.

[maxlharris]

Raz:

Respectfully:
I believe that PP is better.
But:
If someone is currently eating fast food and the sad version of the SAD, SB will be a massive improvement in terms of reducing carbs, increasing protein, eating fresh foods more, etc. It will not be the dramatic improvement that people see on a strict ketogenic diet like PP, but it is a light year improvement over what the OP is currently doing, which is nothing productive and many things counter productive.

In addition, doing a program, even SB, will lead to adherence effects (discussed in a recent Dr. Mike blog).

PP is only a better diet than SB if you do PP faithfully. If you cannot do a ketogenic diet faithfully, and can do SB faithfully, SB will be better.

[razgarcia]

Yes, I agree that SB is better than low fat and certainly better than fast food.

[mcsblues]

Hey Fenella.

Hope you are not more confused! As you see we all come to this from slightly different points ... but the overall message is much the same trust me!
You do deplete glycogen. This has nothing to do with muscle mass. It has to do with how much water your retain.
Sort of. You have less than a pound of glycogen - ie carbohydrate stored as carbohydrate - (any further calories from carbohydrate excess to current requirements are stored as fat). Most of that glycogen is stored in the liver and is used as a blood sugar buffer (if BS gets too low the liver converts some of that glycogen to glucose to compensate). The remaining glycogen (yes we are talking less than half a pound now) is stored with muscle, but can't be converted back to glucose - but it is used as a source of energy for short bursts of exercise. When we say "low carb depletes glycogen" - it doesn't ... well not directly, but it does mean that muscle glycogen takes longer to replenish after exercise.

Any kind of weight loss diet involves water loss. as I said before, a low carb diet has an initially slightly more pronounced diuretic effect than (say) a low fat diet - a very small part of that probably relates to water associated with muscle glycogen - but again, the effect is temporary - after your body adjusts the total amount of water you lose will be much the same as in any other method of weight loss ... but you will lose more fat ... and less muscle (if any) ... which is what you want. Right?

Fast food is major feature of neither Protein Power nor South Beach. You will do better doing either program than eating fast food ... If you work McDonalds, you will not lose weight, you will probably make your cholesterol numbers look a lot worse, and you will not understand well being from your own experience, except as a memory.

Agatston turns me off for his dishonesty and the lack of evidence generally to support his claims. His plan was a blatant (and sadly very successful) attempt to make money from a supposedly healthier version of Atkins. It panders to the general ignorance and fear about healthy fat and also the 'healthy' grains thing :rolleyes:. The Atkins camp is now heading down this path, as clearly they see the commercial advantage in doing so. All I can say is read as much as you can and make up your own mind.

I fail to see the attraction of McDonalds and the like - either the food or the experience, but they remain prime examples of the success of advertising - especially on the young. I've had the conversation with kids especially - you know you can get better chips (french fries to you) here? much better burgers here? you'd be hard pressed to find worse icecream or coffee, right? ... now where do you want to go again? .... Maccas!!!

That being said while it is far from an optimal diet - if you make the right choices you can lose weight on a fast food diet, or one that includes fast food and also improve your cholesterol numbers as well as more important things like triglycerides and blood sugar/insulin. While I pretty much hated it :p - check out one guy who did the experiment and succeeded in doing just that ... much to his doctor's amazement/disappointment!

http://www.fathead-movie.com/

And yes, I agree, the best low carb diet is the one you stick to - but if you want to do the very best thing health wise (as I'm sure you do) - the PP aproach with real whole foods is head and shoulders above the rest. Why would you settle for anything less?;)

[fenella]

I do understand that my eating habits need to change. I just really want to do what's healthiest for my body.
I found this article (http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&channel=health&category=heart.disease&conitem=a03ddd2eaab85110VgnVCM10000013281eac____&page=6)
about why saturated fat isn't that bad.
Then there's this (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-full-story/index.html)

I know the first one has more science in it, I just can't find the second article that I was actually looking for.

I HAVE read PP about 8 times (and PP Lifeplan, and 30 day low-carb solution). It is convincing, but so are things that say saturated fat is bad.

I did start on SB, as it is low-carb at the beginning anyway. I am hungry because of the lack of fats, I think, but I'm giving it a shot.


I do want to make a lifestyle change for my health. My weight is an issue, too, but eating for good health is most important.

When I wrote that my cholesterol was high, I do not remember the exact numbers. I do remember that my LDL was what she considered "very high". She did say that my HDL was on the upper end of the normal range, but that the ratio was off. My triglycerides were high too. I will try to get more specific results from her.

I appreciate all of the responses. I do know that you wouldn't be on the site if you didn't believe that PP was the best plan. There is just so much conflicting information out there. I'm trying to sort it out.

I'm going to see if I can stick to SB...though I think the re-introduction of carbs may be problematic for me (I feel that I am a carb addict). Overall, I think that watching my carbs is key. I'll let you know how it goes.

[mcsblues]

First of all, if you want to do SB that is fine - but you do need to ask yourself fairly early on whether this is a way of eating you can adopt for the rest of your life - and the way I see it there are two warning signs already in that department.

1. You shouldn't be, and there is no need to be hungry - perhaps the reasoning behind the fat restriction and other details of the plan need looking at, for this reason alone.

2. You are justifiably worried about what happens when you add back in the carbs, as the plan suggests you should ... when you know the carbs are what caused the problem in the first place. Again, this is a good reason to question the wisdom or otherwise of the plan. Why add carbs back in at all - will this make you healthier? If so how? Will it make it easier for you to maintain your weight loss and health benefits for the rest of your life ... or not?

I will briefly address the second article (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-full-story/index.html) because it contains many errors but at least one classic example of the dishonesty I referred to in my last post;

Why hasn't cutting fat from the diet paid off as expected? Detailed research—much of it done at Harvard—shows that the total amount of fat in the diet isn't really linked with weight or disease. (6-9 (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-full-story/index.html#references)) What really matters is the type of fat in the diet. Bad fats, meaning trans and saturated fats, increase the risk for certain diseases. Good fats, meaning monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, do just the opposite. They are good for the heart and most other parts of the body. Ok, if you read that quickly it tells you that Harvard research has shown that it isn't the total fat intake that is critical, but the types of fats ... right? It even has some references to the (can't get more respected than Harvard) research that has shown this to be true.

But it doesn't.

Read it again. The amount of fat in the diet isn't linked to weight or disease.

Wow.

And what have we been told for decades? There is even some research in support of this proposition - not very good research it has to be said, but there in black and white - weight, coloretal cancer, breast cancer, heart disease ... all show no relation to fat intake (or in actual terms of the research, no benefit from reducing fat and increasing intake of fruit and vegetables) ... none.

But they go on to say;

"What really matters is the type of fat in the diet. Bad fats, meaning trans and saturated fats, increase the risk for certain diseases. Good fats, meaning monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, do just the opposite. They are good for the heart and most other parts of the body."

Notice anything about that?

There are no references. None at all.

Basically the low fat brigade are so shocked by the fact they must now admit what they have been telling people to do is just plain wrong - they have in total desperation, guessed that there must be another explanation, again involving the demon fat, but this time it is the kind of demon ... and the mere fact they have no evidence in support of this new claim ... well lack of evidence never slowed them down before ...

Oh what the hell this is fun;

Our bodies can make all the saturated fat we need, so we don't need to eat any of it. That's why saturated fat can be in the bad category—because we don't need to eat any of it, and it has undesirable effects in cardiovascular disease.No references again - but they are right ... sort of - our bodies can make saturated fat, so therefore saturated fat is bad:confused::paranoid::rolleyes::lol: - so eat more carbs instead (which is what the body uses ... to make saturated fat!:p) Come again?

Trans fats are "very bad" - well almost no argument there apart from the fact that some trans fatty acids are not formed by hydrogenation as they say - so some are not bad at all - they are naturally occurring (I don't think too many cows come equipped with a high pressure hydrogen tank or the necessary catalyst!). but again they are missing the obvious point - why did we ever get into hydrogenating fats in the first place? Because people like them told us saturated fat was bad ... with no evidence (of course) so there was a demand to make something else behave like saturated fat.

Dinner time for me ... and I have a feeling it will be bad :)

[maxlharris]

The types of fat argument.
Amusing.

They suggest that you need to be specific about the types of fat consumed and then...

...

...

They generalize all fats into 3 broad descriptive categories, that present a very limiting oversimplification.

Omega-3 vs Omega 6. Not worth discussion, apparently. All polyunsats are good. Hogwash.

The fact of the matter is that fats are neither good nor bad. They are useful. Some are useful in moderated amounts (like omega-6) and some are under eaten (like Omega-3s). Monounsats are pretty much all good. Many sat fats will not impact your cholesterol numbers. Some will improve your HDL without touching your LDL.

Ultimately, the well researched science suggests that the reduction of the carbs is the best route to health for the largest group of people.

[fenella]

Thank you for your insights! I really appreciate your input. I didn't notice the non-reference part before. I guess I was (wrongly) assuming that the Harvard researchers wouldn't put it in there if it weren't backed up by something. (I know what happens when you assume...:slywink:)
I am going to stick with my plan for a little. I am basically doing PP right now because phase 1 is similar, except for the avoiding sat. fat (although, I did eat some full-fat cheese and felt better last night). I am still allowed almonds, etc. which tend to fill me up.
I think when I add in my carbs in 2 weeks, I'm going to start with strawberries, cantaloupe, etc., which I did well on with PP before. I may try to add a bit more, but I am tracking everything and counting (even though I don't have to). I think if I see that my carbs are "high" (above 40) and cravings return, then I will go back to a more PP plan. I'm willing to give it a shot...it certainly won't hurt me to use olive oil instead of butter (which I do a lot anyway because I like it) or eat chicken and fish for a couple of weeks.

[laughingW]

Fenella one thing I experienced when trying what you are trying - not feeling good without dietary sat fats in the beginning.

What I have read, and I believe, is that the body has to make the enzymes and everything to burn whatever is your major fuel. The problem in the beginning is that we don't have the enzymes to burn much sat fat (which our body fat is.) Because we have been used to burning so many carbs and all.

So, if you have sat fat in your food at first, that helps your body get used to burning sat fat, and then when your stored fat burning really kicks in, then you can cut down on the dietary sat fat. the non-sat fats you're talking about limiting yourself to, will not help with that part of it.

This matches my experience.

[Frank Hagan]

I'd like to add that Dr. Mike's blog has some good entries on "bogus studies (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/category/bogus-studies/)" that helps you analyze them with a critical eye. I've started to collect links to individual studies on my blog (http://www.lowcarbage.com/?page_id=8), but you can easily get into a "dueling studies" debate (I recently had one with a person claiming to be a doctor on an unrelated forum ... he maintained that diabetics really don't need to reduce carbs from the SAD).

Knowing how to read the "weasel words" in the Conclusion of studies leads to some wry smiles ... they say things like "Even though this population responded well to a low carb diet, more study is needed ..." The media doesn't do as well as it should in questioning studies; there are a few writers like Gary Taubes who really dig in, but most writers pick up on a single statement and then provide that to their readers as "proof".

[mcsblues]

Thank you for your insights! I really appreciate your input. I didn't notice the non-reference part before. I guess I was (wrongly) assuming that the Harvard researchers wouldn't put it in there if it weren't backed up by something. (I know what happens when you assume...:slywink:)
I am going to stick with my plan for a little. I am basically doing PP right now because phase 1 is similar, except for the avoiding sat. fat (although, I did eat some full-fat cheese and felt better last night). I am still allowed almonds, etc. which tend to fill me up.
I think when I add in my carbs in 2 weeks, I'm going to start with strawberries, cantaloupe, etc., which I did well on with PP before. I may try to add a bit more, but I am tracking everything and counting (even though I don't have to). I think if I see that my carbs are "high" (above 40) and cravings return, then I will go back to a more PP plan. I'm willing to give it a shot...it certainly won't hurt me to use olive oil instead of butter (which I do a lot anyway because I like it) or eat chicken and fish for a couple of weeks.

Sounds like a plan.

On the olive oil front, no it won't hurt you - but don't use olive oil (or any vegetable oil apart from coconut) as a high temperature cooking oil. When these low fat message refugees tell you it is now all about the type of fat you use, they are sort of right ... it is when they get into the details they go horribly wrong ... yet again!:p

The simple rules that I try to follow are;

1. To use fats that are as unprocessed as possible (the terminally bewildered will actually agree here).

2. Concentrate on mainly saturated and mono unsaturated forms (oops, lost them again!) - partly because we get far too much omega 6 (polyunsaturated) fat as it is. And partly because the more saturated a fat is the less prone to being damaged/oxidised/rancid it is - and you don't want to ingest any of that! In fact even aside from cooking, the good chefs will tell you to only buy EVOO in small quantities, and to keep that in a cool dark place because even though EVOO is over 70% MUFA - it is still highly prone to damage just from contact with light and air ... so you can imagine how much worse the high PUFA diet (now recommended as "good") is in this regard.

3. Supplement with fish oil and or krill oil - even if you eat more fish, this is the only way you are going to make a significant change to your omega 6 / omega 3 balance ... apart from limiting omega 6 intake as much as you can of course.

[maxlharris]

Don't use EVOO to cook. It is a waste of expensive oil. Use it as a condiment/dressing. You will get the full flavor.

If you have to cook with olive oil, get plain old olive oil for that, and keep your EVOO in a dark bottle, in a dark place, that is cool, but not cold. Like the cubboard that isn't next to the stove.