Can you help explain my rapid weight loss?

[whereami]

Besides all that has been said to you how do you expect the weight to stay off? Are you gonna eat meat meaning zero carbs for the rest of your life...its quite impossible..sooner or later your gonna get sick of it and gain it all back...so take heed and listen to the words of the wise they know what they are talking about.

[Chicklady]

Liv....the recipe section says all the recipes are new to this edition, so it can't be from paste and copy.

[shelly808]

Hey, regarding the recipes in the book, I noticed that and it did confuse me...It did seem like an error...they should change that!

One thing I think is funny about my own little story is that I do want to do it to the T and I googled the "atkins induction phase" and printed out the list and bought only stuff on that list (chucked every single thing outta my frig before I went shopping even-including all jellies jams and sweetened mustard)

But I unknowingly got the original one food list...did not know there was a difference! So I have been pretty much doing the old diet, eating meat of course with lots of celery cucumbers, salad greens for my veggies, all with some fat like olives cheese avocados, bacon, cream cheese and mayo.

As far as cooked veggies...a little spinach and peas so far in this week one. I need to get more of a variety as the acceptable list is pretty long....but omg, the cooked veggies are delish seasoned with a little bacon fat, and on the spinach a good dash of vinegar and red pepper flakes....and on the peas, a little squeeze of lemon and a good grind of black pepper....yummmmo....I would NEVER use bacon fat before.

I have slowly weened off the coffee by miss it and want to go get some decaf.
I have been drinking a little Japanese plain green tea - I guess that is a no no because of the little bit of caffeine?

I do have the book and have read most of the beginning but have been sorta skipping around to get the info I need...I guess I should just hunker down and read the whole thing....

Sorry to have hijacked your post diver down!!...but I just need a little clarity for myself about the caffiene and the differences between the old induction in compairson to the 2002 new one.

Shelly

[Georgiana]

Originally Posted by Chicklady

Liv....the recipe section says all the recipes are new to this edition, so it can't be from paste and copy.

The recipes in the 2002 edition are new in the sense that they were not included in previous editions of the book. However, this does not mean all of them were developed specifically for the 2002 edition or that they were created and reviewed by Dr. Atkins himself. Some of those recipes have been designed following the "old" Atkins rules, where you were allowed to eat 20 g of net carbohydrates coming from whatever foods you fancied. This obviously did not work too well, or otherwise Dr. Atkins would not have changed the rules of the diet by adding:

Originally Posted by DANDR, page 123

5. Eat nothing that is not on the acceptable foods list. And that means absolutely nothing! Your "just this one taste won't hurt" rationalization is the kiss of failure during this phase of Atkins.

I agree the Recipes section is confusing for someone who only read DANDR (which is indeed the book we go by on this Board), but rule #5 above seems quite stringent to me, which is why I seriously doubt Dr. Atkins ever thought "go on, have a little rye flour during Induction, it won't hurt you". The rules of the diet have been developed by Dr. Atkins since he was the one working with patients and the only one who had the knowledge to create this diet in the first place and to tweak it in the following years. On the other hand, the recipes were developed by a bunch of people who only needed the list of foods acceptable during Induction to do their job and nothing guarantees that some of these people didn't have the "one taste won't hurt" attitude. This is why we advise members to follow the rules of Atkins -- because it's one part where others (wife, employees, etc.) had little involvement.

[Chicklady]

The recipes in the 2002 edition are new in the sense that they were not included in previous editions of the book. However, this does not mean all of them were developed specifically for the 2002 edition or that they were created and reviewed by Dr. Atkins himself. Some of those recipes have been designed following the "old" Atkins rules, where you were allowed to eat 20 g of net carbohydrates coming from whatever foods you fancied. This obviously did not work too well, or otherwise Dr. Atkins would not have changed the rules of the diet by adding:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DANDR, page 123
5. Eat nothing that is not on the acceptable foods list. And that means absolutely nothing! Your "just this one taste won't hurt" rationalization is the kiss of failure during this phase of Atkins.

So far, the explanations for the contradictions in the book are personal theory....we don't know. My point is, if you tell people to follow the book, and they aren't doing it as one person interprets it, doesn't mean they aren't doing it by the book. You chose one quote above, perhaps someone else would chose another....it's still in the book.

That said, DD seems to be following the '72 version. But there are plenty of Atkins success stories right here on this forum who followed the 2002 version who are having trouble with maintainance.
Either way, I don't think a half dozen people need to jump on the guy.


I am now out of this conversation. There's just too much speculation to be basing a reasonable debate on, and the man is not here to explain.

[not2late]

Originally Posted by Chicklady

So far, the explanations for the contradictions in the book are personal theory....we don't know. My point is, if you tell people to follow the book, and they aren't doing it as one person interprets it, doesn't mean they aren't doing it by the book. You chose one quote above, perhaps someone else would chose another....it's still in the book.

It's kind of hard to misinterpret certain things in the book, Chicklady. For example, "Eat nothing that is not on the acceptable food list. And that means absolutely nothing" can't be interpreted 100 different ways.

That said, DD seems to be following the '72 version.

And we follow the 2002 edition. Which makes it very, very, very difficult for us to give any meaningful advice to him. Moreover, it would be very frustrating for him because according to his book, he could drink up to 6 servings of caffeinated beverages per day. But according to DANDR 2002, he is to avoid it, and since we are following 2002, that's the advice we give.

But there are plenty of Atkins success stories right here on this forum who followed the 2002 version who are having trouble with maintainance.

Maintenance for any diet program is difficult. The last time I read diet statistics it was something like 1/3 of the people who make it to goal regain their weight within 1 year. And 1/3 of the people who maintain past a year will regain all their weight in 5 years.

Either way, I don't think a half dozen people need to jump on the guy.

Looking over the thread, I think some people were upset at his response to everlosing. Some people were upset with what they perceived to be the undesirable tone of his posts.

I am now out of this conversation. There's just too much speculation to be basing a reasonable debate on, and the man is not here to explain.

I agree with you. Diver can speak for himself. He doesn't need an interpreter or intermediary to speak for him.

[Chicklady]

It's kind of hard to misinterpret certain things in the book, Chicklady. For example, "Eat nothing that is not on the acceptable food list. And that means absolutely nothing" can't be interpreted 100 different ways.

There's not many ways to interpret "follow this menu for the first week and then repeat"

I agree with you. Diver can speak for himself. He doesn't need an interpreter or intermediary to speak for him.

And he's had the good sense to leave

[mitzimarie]

Originally Posted by Chicklady

And he's had the good sense to leave

My guess is, that's because he accomplished what he set out to do.

[SunnySmile501]

So far, the explanations for the contradictions in the book are personal theory....we don't know.

If you ever read Dr. A's biography, you would know. Right from the ghost writers mouth. Dr. A didn't "write" any of the books. He was a doctor, not an author. He collaborated with ghost writers, and you know how irascible the doc could be. Sometimes the GW would try to write in a manner that would appeal to skeptics or sounded easier to do. Most of the contradictions come from what was the docs input and what the writer got into print.

[Diver Down]

DD seems to be following the '72 version...and we follow the 2002 edition

Perhaps that should be noted somewhere on the forums when a person signs up, if that is in fact the nature of this bulletin board. In my opinion, not everything that happens over time can be considered progress. Since there have been many revisions of the Atkins formula over the years, more than ever I believe it's vital we don't take anything on faith. I seek to identify what scientific claims are based on fact versus subjective research of particular focus groups. But I digress...

I certainly don't want to offend people who view caffeine as the devil, only to share my experiences with Atkins and gain a wider understanding of the biological processes involved. I'm now at day 7 of my induction and I've lost 13 pounds thus far. That rate of weight loss is rapid even by my standards of past experience with induction so I came seeking answers as to the possible causes. If you stay on topic and help me answer that question (i.e. boonie stomper), I thank you.