Claudia

Which is false for France generally. Even if South of France diet has some common points with Mediterranean diet, it is still different.

I do not know if this has been confirmed or not, but I one read that to have the biggest meal at noon (still time to exercise a little bit afterwards) instead of evening (you go to bed not far after and transform food into body fat) is also good to avoid obesity.

If you go to restaurant with work visitors in France, count 2 hours for the meal! When you go to the restaurant, it is also to have time for dicussion.
And I remember big family meals which lasted 5 hours!

BTW, do you have an idea on how to put some fat on my son's bones? he is 11, 1m50 and only 33 kg!

Claudia

The diet which is recommended here is:
-one part of meat/fish/eggs
-one part of starch food
-one part of crude fruits or vegetables
-one part of cooked fruits or non starch vegetables
-one part of dairy product.
-drink water, and a little bit of wine if you are old enough (No more than one glass per meal).

There is no weight or content specified, parts are "the usual you put in your plate", obviously one part of cheese is a lot smaller than one part of potatoes.
There is no place for candies or sodas, and cakes will be included in the previous list (starch?) and to be eaten moderately.

Machiavelli

The thing that Dr. Atkins can be most noted for is bringing more awareness to the powerful affect of carbs on the body. And recognizing this affect has empowered a lot of people to change thier lives for the better. One does not have to purchase anything with Atkins name on it to benefit from this knowledge.

The benefits are not merely weight control. More importantly, cholesterol and diabetes are also affected greatly by carb intake. And it seems to me that many people here are flatly rejecting any low-carb strategy. You don't have to be on his diet to think carefully about what you eat and when you eat it and how it will affect your body when you do eat it. The more you know about it's affect, the wiser your choices can be. What's so bad about that.

Though many foods that contain them have nutritional value, carbohydrates themselves have none. They simply provide easily metabolized energy. If you aren't requiring a lot of energy from your body, then why eat carbs?

JGL53

I don't get your point. If someone is, say, one hundred pounds overweight and uses the Atkins induction plan to safely, and in short order, burn off these decades of fat accumulation, what's that to you or me? You think surgery is better? You think they're going to walk it all off? Just 'cut back on the donuts"? Your prescriptions haven't worked so well so far for very many people, doc.

The diet is a 'drastic change', but so what? Many people don't find it that horrific. It's a kick in the ass to get them on the road to eating healthy. It's perfectly doable. What is the problem?

Wrong. I've had no problem cutting way back on the total carbohydrate content of my diet, eating more fat and protein.
I don't consider it that 'drastic' a change. I'm not so special. If I can do it, most if not all can. Millions have. It doesn't take that much will power. You still seem to think that the Atkins diet is like a trip to Mars. It ain't.

[/B][/QUOTE] I don't deny that it could be successful for some, and that they might enjoy it. It is my position, however, that it is not an easy fix, and that it isn't better than simple moderation and exercize. [/B][/QUOTE]

There is no 'easy fix'. THAT is my point. You have to change your dietary style - for life.

Re your recommendation of just "simple moderation"? What's that - eating three scoops of ice cream instead of four? What's wrong with eliminating unhealthy fats and sugars from your diet, and eating somewhat less starch and somewhat more protein and healthy fats? How is this to be viewed as "drastic" in some unacceptable way?

As for exercise, it's great for maintaining a normal weight, but it doesn't work well for losing a lot of weight, unless you're doing a marathon or two a week. Most people can burn no more than four or five hundred calories PER HOUR of exercise. A pound of body fat equals three and a half thousand calories. Whip out your calculator and figure how much jogging you'll need to do to burn off fifty or one hundred pounds of fat.

BTW, Claudia's five part meal sounds good to me. I think it could be fairly charactorized as a 'controlled' carbohydrate eating plan IN COMPARISON to what most Americans eat.

Do YOU have some major problem with this eating plan? If not, then we have no disagreement, except for the Atkins induction and premaintenance diets. So ignore them like potted plants. They're not for you.

Bookman

I think that you answered your own question, no?

Bookman

I'm not the best informed on this topic, but aren't you being a little simplistic here? Sure, the direct burn from exercise is just as you say it is, but I always thought that it was true that as you became more fit and active your metabolic rate increased and you would burn more calories throughout the day even when not actively running or lifting weights or whatever.

Bookman

JGL53

Correct, but only a small amount more. But I was referring to some hypothetical American who has fifty or a hundred pounds of excess body fat and is totally out of shape, aerobically speaking.

It's gonna be REAL hard to utilize exercise to make a dent in that for quite a while. Diet is the more important thing. If this hypothetical person can get up to a hour and a half of hard exercise and keep it up for a couple of years then, yeah, that's gonna work like gangbusters. But talk about 'drastic' changes in one's life! I think SLOWLY increasing frequency, duration, and effort until you'll doing several hours of moderate to strenuous exercise per week is best. I think my point was that exercise is not the 'magic bullet - quick fix' either.

JGL53

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Machiavelli
Though many foods that contain them have nutritional value, carbohydrates themselves have none. They simply provide easily metabolized energy. If you aren't requiring a lot of energy from your body, then why eat carbs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my take, Bookman: One only needs a certain amount of "easily metabolized energy". So if one only needs to eat fifteen - or twenty - or whatever per cent of your diet in this type of low-nutritional energy to supply what is required for good health, then why eat more? (Hey, I think I answered my own question, too.)

Bookman

I don't understand your analysis. You state that one only needs a certain amount of "easily metabolized energy" and want to draw a conclusion about what proportion of that to eat compared to other foods? If one only needs a certain amount, does it not make sense to talk about limiting one's self to that amount rather than targeting a percentage of one's intake?

Do you think that if I consume 10,000 calories a day but only a small percentage of that is carbs that I will lose weight?

Bookman

Machiavelli

Without a doubt.

I was eating massive amounts of ground beef, cheese, eggs, and various other goodies. But couldn't keep the weight on. Think I'm kidding? try it.

Your body is not like a bank account. Eating 10,000 calories does not mean you will metabolize 10,000 calories.