Yep. I could eat 70 apples in one day (probably not possible) and still be at zero points. I'm still using my WW online tracker, but I'm also keeping track of carb, fat, and protein over at nutrimirror.
[Reply]

If anyone knows about Atkins, do I have to count zero carb diet drinks into a carb count? Just asking cuz 1 packet of splenda is considered 1 g of carbs, but I'm not really finding anything on counting artificial sweeteners in diet drinks. I'm probably going to cut out the coffee entirely and rely on stuff like Coke Zero for my caffeine as I have to have it (especially as a nursing student). :-)
[Reply]

I haven't counted any artificial sweetners. I take about 9 a day with all the coffee I drink. Should I be counting these?
[Reply]

This is why I'm a little curious...from the Atkins site below. Am I to conclude a diet drink like Diet Rite that contains splenda would count towards my carb count and aspartame sweetened drinks wouldn't?

Artificial Sweeteners

* Splenda – one packet equals 1 gram of net carbs

Beverages

* Clear broth/ bouillon (make sure it has no sugars added)
* Club soda
* Cream, heavy or light.
* Decaffeinated or regular coffee and tea*
* Diet soda (be sure to note the carb count)
* Flavored seltzer (must say no calories)
* Herb tea (without added barley or fruit sugar added)
* Water – at least eight 8-ounce glasses per day including...
o Filtered water
o Mineral water
o Spring water
o Tap water
[Reply]

My husband has be be careful of what artificial sweeteners he uses. It raises his blood sugar. So I am sure there is something to it.
[Reply]

I use Sweet n Low or generic pink packets normally, Laura. Splenda on occasion. Either of those raise blood sugar? Splenda is made with some sort of sugar, isn't it?

I'll have to check into it, or maybe Myles can ring in with an answer.
[Reply]

One has carbs, the other has cancer.:-)
[Reply]

nope
[Reply]

What does that mean?
[Reply]

Down 4 lbs today! Long way to go, but I'm at least headed in the right direction!
[Reply]

Weighed in at 230.2 this morning. I weighed myself again after a cup of coffee and a dump and was at 230.0 The weight has been coming off at about 1.5-2 pounds a week which is exactly what is supposed to happen, I just want so see that thing read in the 220s
[Reply]

Very nice Hugh and Derrick :-)
[Reply]

I believe he means there's been a number of studies that prove the burning of more calories than you take in won't necessarily result in weight loss.
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

A low carb/high fat weight loss program is more about controlling insulin levels than is is about the old calorie in/calorie out thought. Do a quick search about insulin levels and weight loss.
[Reply]

Congrats Hugh and Derrick!:-)



As far as the discussion Duane and I were having, it was in relation to flaws with the new WW and their new Points Plus foods. Yes, calories in, calories out is flawed depending on what you eat, but you can't eat 60,000 calories and expect to lose weight. That is what we were talking about with the zero points foods, such as apples. You can't expect to eat 70 apples a day and expect to lose weight, even if your points total for the day would be zero. I think everyone is taking it out of context here.
[Reply]

Bottom line is: less calories than calories burned by body daily = weight loss. There is no getting around this fact. Witness the guy that lost weight eating nothing but Twinkies. A healthy diet and a weight loss diet aren't necessarily the same thing. To lose weight "all" you need to do is get into a caloric deficit state. It's as simple and hard as that. Eating lotsa fruit might be somewhat healthy, but alas fruit does have calories so see point one. There is actually a very good book that explains all this: The Anderson Method - The Secret to Permanent Weight Loss http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935097288. I needed the idiot proof Medifast Method as my crutch. I've been trying on my own for decades w/o real success, hopefully I have finally found it.
[Reply]

That theory can be flawed depending on what you eat and how each individual body responds to it, but for the most part, yes it is correct.:-)


I also agree that every one is different. What works for some, doesn't work for others. Our bodies are all different, and we all have different lifestyles. There's no one method that works for everyone. That's why our society has millions of different diets and lifestyle change programs. It's all about finding out which one works best for you and sticking with it.
[Reply]

Anyone heard from Kirk lately?
[Reply]

Sorry, this is not a scientific fact, and like andy said, everyone is different.

have a read of these two books:

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-.../dp/1400040787

http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat...ref=pd_sim_b_1

Calorie-restricted diets work because they inadvertently cut carbohydrates. But they also starve you and your body compensates by making you hungry. You'll stay hungry for years until your body gets what it wants- the calories to replace what it lost. Just like everything else in your body fat growth is regulated by growth hormones, not calories. The growth hormone that regulates fat is called insulin (maybe you've heard of it :P), and it's production is triggered by eating carbohydrates, not fat. You can eat as much fat as you like and so long as your insulin levels are low you won't gain weight because your body has no signal to. That's why a lion can eat half an antelope and not get fat but a house cat on kibble seems to gain weight no matter what you do. Kibble has carbs. An antelope doesn't. To think otherwise would be like asking why you don't get taller when you eat more. The answer to that is obvious and the answer to horizontal weight gain is exactly the same. Weirdly, no one likes to put 2-and-2 together on that one. I guess it's just easier tot think that you get fat by being lazy and eating too much, not due to some complicated hormonal dance. To make matters worse being lazy and eating too much really does make you gain weight, but it's just not for the reason people think it does.

^ Copy/pasted from an article i was reading, but says what i would have typed pretty much, in different words
[Reply]