The Steaks Are High

Low carb study conference call

I just finished participating in a conference call with with Dr. Michael Dansinger, MD and Dr. James Hill, PhD. as they debated the findings of the latest Atkins study and the merits of a low-carb diet. A slew of low carb bloggers and medical practitioners made up the panel, including big names like Jimmy Moore, Dr. Mary Vernon, Regina Wilshire, Dr. Eric Westman, and Dana Carpender.

The call began with the host, Jason Rosenberg of RevolutionHealth.com, who introduced Dr. Dansinger and Dr. Hall. Dr. Dansinger then presented the findings of the study, which was conducted at Stanford University by Dr. Christopher Gardner. (Check out the study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.)

311 overweight women were randomly assigned to one of the popular diets: Atkins, the Zone, Learn (which follows the American government's dietary recommendations) or the Ornish diet.

Subjects were coached on the respective diets for two months, attending a class every two weeks which was based on the book. After the two month teaching period, subjects were allowed to follow the diets unsupervised.

After one year, the 77 women from the Atkins group lost an average of 10lbs – twice as much as those on the low fat Learn and Ornish diets. Women on the Zone lost an average of 3.5lb.

Along with the most success in terms of weight loss, the Atkins dieters also showed a greater improvement in heart disease risk factors, with larger reductions in body mass index, triglycerides and blood pressure.

After Dr. Dansinger's description of the study, Dr. Hall of the University of Colorado offered his own analysis. He agreed wholeheartedly that weight loss is greater when following a low carb approach at the six month mark, but found that the differences after one year were not statistically significant. His main point was that while Atkins has been repeatedly shown to be the best diet for weight loss, all of the diets studied have similar rates of failure after one year. At the one year mark, most of the people, regardless of dietary approach, are regaining the weight they lost. Dr. Hall believes we need to move away from studies of weight loss and figure out how people can keep the weight off. He also mentioned that his involvement with the National Weight Loss Control Registry leads him to believe that the best predictor of successfully maintaining weight loss is a person's level of physical activity.

I was glad to hear from all the medical professional on the call an emphasis on how consistent their findings have been regarding the intake of saturated fat and associated positive lipid profiles. In plain English: eating saturated fat (in the absence of carbohydrates) will not make your cholesterol skyrocket, or your bottom get bigger.

But hey, this butter-lovin', pork-guzzlin', steak-devotee already knew that. I did find the “maintenance problem” an interesting one though. My question to the panel was: what if the social climate wasn't so hostile to low-carbing – would people have an easier time sticking with the diet long-term?

The doctors on the call agreed that the majority of mainstream practitioners would most likely not recommend a low carb diet to the patients, and a good chunk of them would actually advise against it. Bear in mind that this recommendation is completely without scientific basis. One thing everyone on the call agreed upon was the urgent need to teach other physicians the science behind low carb so that they aren't giving misinformation.

I think this is a huge problem. I haven't kicked up much of a fuss about it here, but I've had worried friends and relatives pass on their doctor's dire warnings about my diet. I've had people rolling their eyes even at the mention of low carb, and groans at the amount of fat I eat as though I'm downing plates of arsenic.

I get irritated going to restaurants and paying money for sides I won't eat. I'm frustrated by the myriad grocery options for the low fat folks, and the idiotic “heart healthy” labels slapped on sugary cereals.

The combination of uneducated doctors and nutritionists giving out faulty advice and the anti-low-carb mainstream media creates a culture very hostile to low carbers. I firmly believe that if the public health message about sugar turning into fat becomes more widespread, we'll have an easier time socially and be even more likely to stick to this delicious way of eating.

When I point this point to Dr. Hall, he countered by saying that Atkins had its spot in the limelight in 2003. If my hypothesis is correct, low carb should have taken off like a rocket back then and never come down. Why, he asked, didn't everyone stick to it when it was all the rage?

Dana Carpender made some good points in answer to this question. First, a lot of people who said they were doing low carb were really just relying on the low carb junk food that came out at the time. Atkins-certified products with white flour and high fructose corn syrup...I believe mention was made of the good Dr. A turning in his grave at the thought of this. Then there are the fad dieters to take into account, those who don't see dieting as a permanent change but skip from trendy plan to trendier plan. The fickleness of the media, who wanted the “next best thing”, and the untimely and ill-reported death of Dr. Atkins were Dana's final reasons for the decreasing popularity of Atkins.

I'd also like to add that the very “fad” aspect of 2003 Atkins did not help foster the kind of environment I'm talking about. Popular perception of Atkins at the time was not that we'd found a thrilling new approach to healthy eating, it was “Did you hear about this crazy diet where you can eat pounds of bacon and still lose weight?”

If someone states that they're trying to watch their calories, or keeping an eye on their fat intake, or cutting out meat and dairy, nobody jumps all over them with hysterical predictions of failure or diseases diagnoses. All low carbers are asking for is that the low carb approach be recommended as an option alongside low fat, since the medical safety of Atkins has been proven by this and many other studies. Oh yeah, and that the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association read some of the latest research for a change.

Dishing the Dirt on Veggies

“Reduce your intake of red meat and saturated fat, and incorporate more fruits, veggies and whole grains into your diet.” (Yawn.) How many times have you read these words? It's almost like they've become the requisite tag line at the end of every diet and nutrition article. Don't people have anything new to say about nutrition? Is it possible, after following this advice for oh, a good forty years now, and the obesity crisis rapidly spiraling out of control, that we should look for alternative dietary wisdom?

Regina Wilshire, on her blog Weight of the Evidence, had an excellent post this week that got into some number-crunching regarding these very recommendations. “Do we need more plant-based calories in our diet?” she asks, quoting numerous health resources which conclude that the problem with our diet is animal foods.

In order to investigate the hypothesis that reducing animal protein and fat intake will lead to better health, she compares dietary statistics from 1961 (before the “eat less fat” public health message took hold) and 2000. Her findings are extremely illuminating:

• In 1961, the average caloric intake was 2882 calories. 65% of these calories came from plant sources, and 35% from animals.

• Fast forward to 2000, and the average calorie count skyrockets to 3817 calories. Interestingly enough, 73% of those calories come from plants, and 27% from animals.

• Break down the stats even further to look at protein intake, and you find the same story. In 1961, animal protein accounted for 8.7% of a person's total calories, and 66.1% of their protein intake. In 2000, animal protein drops to 7.6% of total calories, and 63% of total protein.

People are doing what they're told – cutting back on animal protein and replacing it with food from plant sources. In doing so, they're also eating a whopping 935 more calories. Where are all these calories coming from, if we're cutting back on evil fatty meat? As Regina Wilshire points out, 80% of this calorie increase comes from sugar, vegetable oils and cereal grains – the key ingredients in processed, pre-packaged foods.

Could it be that cutting out satisfying, filling food sources like animal protein and saturated fat leaves us so hungry we chow through an extra 900+ calories per day? Is shifting the balance toward plant-based foods actually making people fatter than ever?

Vegetarian diets took another knock this month from the champion athlete Colin Jackson, who concluded that everyone should eat meat to remain at their physical peak after taking part in the TV series, “The Truth About Food.” The televised experiment required Jackson to follow a vegetarian diet for one month. In this article from the Guardian Online, Jackson is quoted as saying “I definitely think vegetarians are weaker. I could see I'd lost a little bit of muscle on my arms and shoulders. When I had to do tests afterwards, I knew I'd lost power.” His conclusion? “Humans are omnivores.” Well, duh.

The study also asked six vegetarian sportswomen to eat meat and see how their physical performance changed, compared to a control group who continued to eat a vegetarian diet. Vanessa Curry, one of the vegetarians who ate meat twice a day during the experiment, explained her reasons for participating: “I wanted to prove being a veggie was not detrimental in any way to sporting performance.”

The proof, in the end, supported an opposite conclusion: after eating meat, Curry showed an improvement in both strength and stamina. This improvement occurred despite her difficulties adjusting to meat, which initially caused her nausea and bloating.

Professor Roger Harris, of Chichester University's Department of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, who ran the study, said the micronutrients vital to muscle function - creatine and carnosine - are found only in meat and fish. He did emphasize that  some vegetarians could be capable of excellent athletic performance but added that this performance could be improved further if muscle levels of creatine and carnosine were increased.

I'm well aware that there are many studies out there which purport to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier. I think, compared with the Standard American Diet, vegetarian eating is much healthier. What I would love to see is a low carb diet and a vegetarian diet pitted against each other in a controlled study, something that has not been done so far.

One other thing to keep in mind about the studies proving vegetarian diets are healthier is that they often fail to take environmental factors into consideration (think about the social groups who can afford to make this dietary choice, their typical levels of education and income). When health markers for veggies are compared with their meat-eating peers, rather than the general population, the supposed health advantages of vegetarianism disappear.

As Jimmy Moore put it in his enlightening post this week on whether the Bible promotes a vegetarian diet ("Does the Bible consider the Atkins Diet a sin?"), I'm not one to knock people for choosing to not to eat meat due to ethical or religious convictions. However, I will question anyone who claims the diet is healthier than a low carb approach.

And now, off for my hunk o' cow.

A Raw Deal

 

In a Slate article this week (The Purloined Sirloin), Brendan Koerner discusses why meat is the most shoplifted item in America. The data comes from the Food Marketing Institute, which just released the 2005 stats: meat rang in as the most shoplifted item in America's grocery stores, coming in just ahead of analgesics, razor blades and baby formula.

 

So why the steak stealing? Micheal Eades suggests that it's because meat is the most nutritionally dense item available, so nabbing a chunk of protein gets you more bang for, well, no bucks. The Slate article seems to conclude that the thievery is luxury-related, with Angus cuts disappearing with more frequency than regular meat cuts. Picturing the would be meat-thief lamenting over only being able to afford burgers, she's portrayed as opting to steal the luxury ribeye instead. Having gazed longingly at the Angus ribeyes priced way out of my grocery budget, I can't say my conclusion would ever be to stuff one down my shorts and shuffle awkwardly out of the store. However, the story does bring to mind the topic of grocery budgeting and how expensive meat can be.

 

According to an article from The Lancet, “Childhood Obesity: Public Health Crisis, Common Sense Cure,” poor children are 2.6 times more likely to grow up to be obese than middle or upper class children. At first, the figures seem paradoxical. I mean, in the simplest terms, if you have less money, and you can't afford to eat as much food, shouldn't you be skinnier?

 

Well sure, if the “eat less, weigh less” doctrine had consistent truth to it. But what's really going on here is that foods with low nutritional value relative to calorie content are often the most economically viable choice for lower income values.  Think 20c boxes of no-name mac-and-cheese, Ramen Noodles or value packs of Little Debbie cakes for less than a dollar. Think the Dollar Menu at McDonald's. In fact, think very hard about McDonald's and other fast food chains: a study by Genevieve Haas of Northeastern University found that people in the poorest urban areas have two and a half times more exposure to fast food than people in the wealthiest areas. Hey, doesn't that stat sound familiar?

 

The problem with the cheap options is that a bunch of the calories come from sugar. Anyone who has read up on blood sugar knows what high sugar foods do: cause a spike in blood sugar immediately after eating, followed by a precipitous plunge which leaves the person craving, hungry and cranky. There is no lasting fullness, as provided by generous quantities of protein and fat. Then it's back to the drive-thru or the Little Debbie box for another quick fix.

 

Even taking into account the increased hunger caused by carbs, I still think that a low-carb diet inflates the grocery bill even as it deflates the waistline. I can't deny spending a bunch more on groceries since I started low carbing. Buying fresh – sticking to the outer edges of the grocery store, just dairy, meat, fish, eggs and fresh veggies – is much more expensive than loading up on freezer meals, pasta and rice from the aisles. Having said that, here are some tips for low carbing on a budget:

 

1. Cheap meat

   Buy meat on special, divide into bags and freeze. There are often great deals on medium ground beef (since the low fat folks pushed up the price of lean – thanks!) and pork. If you can get your own card to a discount club (like Costco's, Sam's Club etc.) these are great places to get good meat deals.

2. Frozen veggies

   OK, so they're not as yummy as the fresh stuff, but frozen veggies are often on sale and good to stock up on for easy side dishes.

3. Can can time

   Cheap low carb canned goods: tuna, salmon, and some low carbers swear by canned sardines. Not this one, but I'll pass along the strong recommendation...

4. Buy the bird

   I was amazed at how cheap whole chickens and whole turkeys are, especially compared to breast prices, sometimes under $1 a pound. You get a load of meat off the bird and then can boil up the carcass for a great soup.

5. Shop for specials

   If you keep an eye out for specials on low carb staples, you can stock up and save a bunch. Even block cheese can be frozen (it's a bit crumblier afterwards).

Of course, all of these tips are assuming the ability to stock and save, which means having a decent amount of cash to spend in advance on food, a way of transporting large grocery loads and having a freezer roomy enough for value shopping. The complex links between poverty and obesity won't be solved by one article, and the politics behind why crappy food is so much cheaper is a topic for another post entirely.

As for me, I have the luxury of being able to invest in my body. I'm able to say I'll go to restaurants less and spend the difference on higher quality groceries, rather than picking between healthy food and my rent. At the end of the day, I'm grateful to have the choice, but I do think it's important to see it as a choice. Personally, I think staying healthy will save me money in the long run – already since low-carbing I've had significantly less sick days, and no medical bills. It might save the country some money too, if they'd turn the infamously inaccurate Food Pyramid upside down: some estimates put the total cost of health care due to obesity at $70 billion.

Cheese and A Whine

"A meal without cheese is like a beautiful woman who lacks an eye." - Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin

Jimmy Moore is up in arms this week on his podcast, and rightfully so, decrying the ridiculous decision in the UK that the Atkins Nutritional Approach could not be described as “healthy”. A print advertisement for the Atkins diet was forcibly removed by a consumer watchdog group. Their “reason”ing? There is not enough evidence that the low-carb diet is a “healthier lifestyle.”

In more craziness from across the pond, cheese was classified as “junk food” under new advertising rules for children's television. The Daily Mail reports that the ban will come into effect this month, with all commercials promoting cheese prohibited during children's TV shows and other shows with a large proportion of young viewers. The fate of the cheese-loving claymation characters, Wallace and Gromit, remains to be seen...

But seriously, examining the criteria used by the Food Standards Agency to determine junk food reveals just how ridiculous these new regulations are. The FSA model assesses the amount of fat, sugar and salt in a 100g portion of food, or 100ml serving of beverages. 100g – that's 3.5 oz, or just under ¼ lb of cheese. Helpfully, the British Cheese Board pointed out that a serving of cheese for most people is 30-40g, or 1 -1.5oz. But no matter: cheese is on the banned list.

Along with cheese, the following foods made the blacklist: Greek yoghurt (from sheep's milk), ham, sausages, bacon rashers, peanuts, cashew nuts, pistachio nuts, peanut butter, olive oil, and butter.

Escaping the ban, and being advertised freely to kids in the UK: fish fingers, lasagna ready meals, currant buns, frozen roast potatoes, frozen oven chips, sliced white bread, frozen chicken nuggets, canned strawberries in syrup, and chocolate-flavored milk.

This is mind-boggling to me. Why on earth would anyone want to ban healthy fats like olive oil, and nutrient packed nuts, and push something so utterly devoid of any nutritional value as sliced white bread? I guess it follows the same “logic” that tells us a diet which restricts sugar and processed junk, and instead relies on whole foods like meat, fish, eggs, cheese and vegetables is not healthy.

A figure often trotted out on the low carb boards, but one I feel is worth repeating is the cost of the grain that goes into a box of cereal. I asked a friend what he thought the cost would be.

“Two dollars? A buck?” I shook my head. “Fifty cents?”

“Nope – try four cents. Four lousy cents, and then they sell the box at $4 or more.”

Obviously, there are other costs associated with producing a box of sugary crap, but what this indicates to me is that a lot of profit is made from dressing up cheap grains in tasty sugar and passing it off as food. And where there's a lot of profit, there's a lot of motivation to keep those dollars rolling in, even if it means the population is rolling around in wheelchairs due to obesity.

The more studies that come out, the more the low carb approach is vindicated. Even researchers who set out to prove how unhealthy low carb diets are came up with undeniable evidence that low carb diets were at least equal to low fat diets in improving health markers, if not better.

Mary Quicke, who runs Quickes Cheese in Devon, sums up this whole situation with more pith than I can hope to muster: “Frankly, it's bonkers,” she said.

I've had enough. I'm off to eat some gouda - and maybe a bacon rasher or two.

High Sugar = High Stakes

High sugar intake increases the risk for pancreatic cancer, according to the results of a study published in the November issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Consumption of added sugar, soft drinks, and sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit was positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk.

The authors write: "High consumption of sugar and high-sugar foods may be associated with a greater risk of pancreatic cancer. Given the practical implications of these findings and the poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer, further research on sugar and high-sugar foods in relation to pancreatic cancer risk is warranted."

More details on this study are available here:
High Sugar Intake Increases Cancer Risk

Another interesting piece of study news from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:
Harvard scientists found that people who frequently ate skinless chicken had a 52% greater risk of bladder cancer. Chemicals called nitrosamines and heterocyclic amines may be to blame.

The Harvard team studied data on nearly 136,000 people. The participants were followed for up to 22 years, during which time 808 developed bladder cancer. Heterocyclic amines, also known carcinogens, form when meat is cooked at high temperatures. Compared with skinless chicken, cooked chicken with skin is known to contain a smaller amount of heterocyclic amines.

Here's the link to the journal:
AJCN - Volume 84, Issue 5 (November 2006)

The lessons from this month's Journal? Be kind to your pancreas. Be kind to your bladder. Stay away from the sugar and enjoy that crispy skin on your chicken.

Won't Fat Make Me Fat?

The short answer: no. It seems pretty intuitive, on the face of it, that eating greasy, fatty food makes your body fat. If you want to avoid the lumpy fat around your own hips, shouldn't you just avoid eating that same substance?

The U.S. Surgeon General recommended in 1988 that, in order to be healthy, people should dramatically reduce their intake of fat. Since the spread of the low-fat approach, obesity across the United States, Canada, and the U.K. has ballooned.

Dr. Micheal Eades and Dr. Mary Eades make the very basic point in their book, Protein Power, that reducing one macronutrient group means an increase in another in order to get sufficient calories. Reduce fat, and you must increase protein and carbohydrates. The problem is that many protein sources also contain fat (red meat and eggs the most obvious), so low fat usually goes hand in hand with high carbohydrate intake.

High-carb, low-fat diets do not work for the vast majority of people. A recent study by Steve Phinney, M.D., Ph.D., and Jeff Volek, Ph.D., from UConn, compared two groups, one on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, the other on a low-fat, high-carb diet. Dr. Eades discussed their findings on his excellent blog (Dr. Mike at Protein Power).

The subjects on the low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet consumed about three times as much saturated fat as those on the low-fat, high-carb diet. The results?

- Subjects on the low-fat, high-carb diet decreased the saturated fat content of their blood by 24%.

- Subjects on the low-carb, high-fat diet decreased the saturated fat content of their blood by 57%.

- Increasing dietary saturated fat threefold when taken as part of a low-carb diet reduced the amount of saturated fat in the blood by a factor of 2.

More measurements on palmitoleic acid (a marker for fat production inside the body) indicated that subjects on the low-carb, high-fat diet decreased the amount of palmitoleic acid by 32% whereas those on the low-fat, high-carb diet didn’t reduce their levels of palmitoleic acid at all. A more detailed explanation can be found here:

Saturated fat info at the American Society of Bariatric Physicians

The clear conclusion is that by decreasing carb intake, the body is better able to process saturated fat. Subjects following the low-carb, high-fat diet not only ate three times more fat and burned it off better than those on the low-fat, high-carb diet, but also produced far less fat than those eating the low-fat diet.

When I read study after study on the effects of low-fat diet, and see people struggling to lose a few pounds by eating tasteless crap, I feel glad and sad. Glad that there are people like Dr. Eades out there, providing valuable information to help people figure out a healthy diet, and sad that so many buy into the low fat path to failure.

I will be posting some great recipes here in the weeks to come, as well as sample daily menus. But one of the best things about eating low carb is the simplicity of menu planning. Just eat meat, fish, eggs, a little hard cheese, and your chosen fat source (olive oil, coconut oil, peanut oil, ghee, or butter).

Now, off to enjoy my juicy T-bone!

Isn't High Protein Dangerous?

Since Atkins resurfaced as a so-called craze in the late 1990s, both the Atkins approach and low carb diets generally have been on the receiving end of some extremely bad press. In 2001, the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee came right out with it:

"Individuals who follow these [high-protein] diets are at risk for...potential cardiac, renal, bone, and liver abnormalities overall."

From a personal perspective, I've never felt healthier than while following a low carb plan. My hair is shiny, and my skin has cleared up incredibly. My nails are strong and grow at lightning speed (as does my hair...I think it's all the protein). My bad knee (botched surgery) swells up far less and joint pain has decreased significantly.

I used to get sick two or three times every winter. I'd always catch a decent percentage of all the bugs going round. Since I started low carbing three years ago, I've been sick twice. That includes colds.

I've also lost over 30 lbs, dropping my BMI from a whopping 29.5 (just .5 away from being officially classified as obese), down to 24.8 (sneaking in at the high end of normal).

But hey, any chump can witter on about shiny hair and a less chunky rump. On to the scientists!

In a paper published in the Sports Nutrition Review Journal in May 2004, Anssi H. Manninen of the Department of Physiology, University of Oulu, Finland, sets out to test the claims of the American Heart Association.

What follows is a summary of this paper. To read the original, scroll down for the link.

THE CLAIM: Increasing the amount of protein consumed above the recommended daily allowance will put excessive strain on the kidneys, causing kidney stones and eventually, kidney disease.

THE TRUTH:
1) There is no data to demonstrate that a healthy kidney will be damaged by increasing protein intake.
2) Kidney problems are rare to nonexistent in the bodybuilding community, in which high-protein intake has been typical for over fifty years.
3) From a comprehensive review on protein intake and renal function: "it is clear that protein restriction does not prevent decline in renal function with age, and, in fact, is the major cause of that decline. A better way to prevent the decline would be to increase protein intake...there is no reason to restrict protein intake in healthy individuals in order to protect the kidney."

THE CLAIM: Increasing dietary protein increase urine calcium excretion. It follows that the higher the protein intake, the more urine calcium is lost and the more negative calcium balance becomes. High protein diets would result in increased prevalence of ostepenia or osteoporotic-related fractures.

THE TRUTH:
1) A recent trail found no significant differences in mean urinary calcium excretion when comparing samples from graded levels of dietary protein.

2) Dietary protein increases circulating IGF-1, a growth factor thought to play an important role in bone formation.

3) The author of the most cited paper favoring the earlier hypothesis that high-protein intake promotes osteoporosis no longer believes that protein is harmful to bone. He concluded that the balance of the evidence seems to indicate the opposite.

THE CLAIM: High protein intake may increase blood pressure.

THE TRUTH:
A negative correlation has been shown between protein intake and systolic and diastolic blood pressures.

THE CLAIM: High protein intake may have detrimental effects on liver function.

THE TRUTH:
1) There is no scientific evidence supporting this contention.

2) Protein is needed not only to promote liver tissue repair, but also to provide lipotropic agents for the conversion of fats to lipoprotein for removal from the liver, thus preventing fatty infiltration.

THE CLAIM: 100g of carbohydrates per day is the minimum requirement to prevent loss of lean muscle tissue. (Also heard as: You're only losing muscle!)

THE TRUTH:
1) Catabolism of lean body mass is reduced by ketones, which likely explains the preservation of lean tissue observed during very-low-carbohydrate diets.

2) A study following subjects on a carbohydrate-restricted diet (8% carbohydrate) for six weeks found that fat mass was significantly decreased (-3.4kg) and lean body mass significantly increased (+1.1kg).  The control group (48% carbohydrate) showed no significant changes in body composition.

ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGES FOR DISEASE PREVENTION AND/OR MANAGEMENT:
Diabetes
The metabolic effects of a high-protein diet were compared to those of the prototypical diet currently recommended to people with Type 2 diabetes. The authors concluded that the high-protein diet lowers blood glucose after meals in Type 2 diabetics, and improves overall glucose control.

Heart Disease
Recent findings suggest that replacing carbohydrates with protein may be associated with a lower risk of ischemic heart disease.

The full paper, including specific numbers from all studies, may be found here:
High-Protein Weight Loss Diets and Purported Adverse Effects: Where is the Evidence?

The Basics

Why go super low on carbs?

There's one main reason to cut carbs extremely low: to experience real ketosis by cleaning out all sugar from your system. You can then add in foods by trial and error and see how your body reacts.

Beginning the very low carb approach
The purpose of the very low carb approach is to show how real ketosis feels. Real ketosis means no appetite and excellent weight loss. Carbs must be very, very low (as close to zero as possible) in order to reach real ketosis. This state is what Dr. Atkins was talking about in Induction.

When we severely restrict carbs, our bodies, rather than using body fat for energy, will initially go to the glycogen in our livers for an energy. When that's used up (usually after about three days), it's like a flood gate is opened and our bodies give up a lot of extra water ... that's the 3-7 pound drop many people experience during the first few days of any very low carb plan. 

Kim-kins is a stricter version of Atkins Induction, developed by a low carber named Kimmer. The basics of this approach to weight loss are:

- < 20 carbs (no fiber subtraction)

- 70-90 g protein

- just enough fat to make your menus work

- absolutely no low carb treats and very limited cheese

Being this strict ensures a state of real ketosis, symptoms of which include strong appetite suppression and very rapid weight loss. This is a chance to see what it's like.
Warning - not everyone likes the feeling, even if you're losing weight very rapidly.
 
Eat as much as you like (while keeping under the recommended protein grams), drink as much as you like and absolutely use protein as a snack! Tuna salad, steak tips, chicken breast, hard-boiled or devilled eggs are all filling, nutritious options.

What to expect
For anyone who reaches Day 3 and hasn't lost any weight, you may be one of the few who needs to go five days in order to deplete your excess glycogen. When you see the rapid drop in weight loss (2+ lbs in a day) you'll know the glycogen is gone. You will lose even more if you're exercising. (You'll also achieve ketosis faster because your body is yanking the glycogen out of your liver.)

Keep in mind that your body converts body fat to fuel as a LAST resort. Your body always wants to take the easy route for energy, which is sugar (carbs). This is why when people first do Induction (or this approach), they feel tired, cranky, have cravings ... their brain is sending a strong message that it wants fuel, NOW.

Those who stick with Induction without caving in are rewarded with ketosis, weight loss and reduced appetite ... their bodies have successfully converted to burning body fat. People who 'relax' on weekends merely send their bodies back to square one and start the carb cravings all over again. These are also the people who 'feel better' after eating carbs and mistakenly think their bodies 'need them'. Wrong. Their bodies wanted sugar and they obliged ... vicious cycle.

How much to eat
Eat when you are hungry. Don't count calories, don't cut back on quantities ... EAT if you're hungry. Snack on more hard-boiled eggs, make an omelette, fry up a steak, throw some chicken pieces on the grill ... eat! The appetite suppression is coming, so don't cave in with a "taste" of carbs.

Liquids
Drink what your body tells you. People are often more thirsty in ketosis. Aim for 1000ml (~64oz), but don't force fluids.

Foods to eat and foods to avoid
Eat eggs until they ban you from the store. Eggs are an incredible in terms of nutrition. Skip the mustard and soy sauce in the beginning. If you can't, use the least amount possible. Use the fat you normally use for cooking - coconut oil is great for adding flavour. Initially, avoid "extra" fats like whipped cream, cheese or cream cheese because they tend to add up calories extremely quickly and often cause stalls in weight loss.

What to do afterwards
After the first week, you can decide what you want to do:

1) Continue on protein & naturally occurring fats until close to goal weight

2) Begin adding SMALL servings of very low carb veggies

3) Go to Atkins Induction

When you begin introducing carbs (like vegetables), take it slowly. Try a small salad at lunch, or a vegetable low on the glycemic index (like spinach or broccoli) with dinner. Slowly work your way up to however fast/slow you want to lose. If you keep your carbs extremely low, you'll stay in this state of no hunger and rapid weight loss. However, once closer to goal, it's advisable to begin adding in the vegetables slowly. If you want to keep the weight off, this must be maintainable as a way of life, not a quick-fix diet.

[Based on Kimmer's Experiment from the Meat and Eggers FAQ]