postwatcher04 - at - hotmail.com

About PostWatch
 
..::Archives::..


 
..::Links::..
The Nation

Winds of Change

Memri

Virginia Gun Rights

= WatchBlogs =
Timeswatch

Alphecca

Biased BBC

ChronWatch (SF Chronicle)

Croooow Blog

OmbudsGod

Regnum Crucis

Rhetorica









  ..::Other Links::..
Debka.com

Independent Women's Forum

Inkwell

MRC

Romanesko

CampusWatch.org

Amy Wellborn

Mark Shea

Kesher Talk

Right Wing News

Eleven Day Empire

Discriminations

Where is Raed?

Healing Iraq

The Command Post

Powerline







 
PostWatch: An irregular correction to the Washington Post


Brought to you by Christopher Rake
















PostWatch
 

Tuesday, February 25, 2003
 
12:15 AM

After all of this, the Mishmash Continues because despite Fumento's fine reputation (and welcome diligence in responding to this blog), here I am sitting with about 12 fewer pounds on my body and knowledge of one friend who's been happily on the Atkins diet for a decade or more. I think after all of this Fumento may arraign me for magical thinking.

A few loose ends. When Fumento mentions his pasta diet below, this is what he means, as described to me in an earlier email:
I never said Atkins didn't work for anybody. Like any restricted diet, if you can live within those restrictions it will work. Personally, I find that if the old pants are starting to get a bit tight I start eating virtually nothing but pasta with a bit of parmesan for a couple of weeks and the weight falls off. Why? It's BORING! To the extent I stick to the pasta, I'm just not going to eat that much.

But that is not the kind of life I lead with Atkins. I eat as much as I want, whenever I want. I am not bored by what seems to me a wide variety of foods, most within the carnivore kingdom: beef, pork, chicken, sausage, ham, fish of all kinds (flounder, cod, tuna, haddock, swordfish, I should stop here since the fish family is rather large), etc., etc. Did I mention shrimp? Cheeses? Perhaps we are talking semantics here, and I want to address a serious man seriously, but I don't feel I have only a few small things to choose from, and thus out of boredom eat less.

How is it possible to eat as much as I want and lose weight? Two possible explanations are offered by low-carbers: Different mechanisms related to the insulin response process low-carbs differently than high carbs, burning fat instead of storing it; and secondly, the satiety mechanism. Low-carbers claim that when you eat higher-fat food, you feel full more quickly, thus you don't need to eat that much before you're satisfied. That makes sense to me.
When I raised the latter in my last email to Fumento, he responded:
It's not a matter of whether it makes sense to you. It's a matter of what do the studies show. My article tells you what the studies show...Fat is NOT more satiating than carbohydrates.


Fumento then offers this link to a new study--he would say yet another study--that shows fat is not more satiating than carbs.

But you know, it's also a matter of how much I weigh. Less.

Fumento has published a scathing attack on Gary Taubes' methods that merits, in the end, a response from Taubes and not some blogger. Hopefully we won't have to wait for that $700,000 book to get it.

Now for some zero-carb sugar-free Jello.




Comments: Post a Comment
 
Powered by Blogger Pro™


Google
Search WWW Search postwatch.blogspot.com