Guys. Darnit! you are going to make me really mad.

[Wildcard]

Can you get it in your thick heads that Low Carb diets do work, and that Low calorie diets work too?

Why do you think that you have to berate the other method to prove your method superior.

Thousands of *individuals* have lost weight on low carb diets
Thousands of *individuals* have lost weight on low calorie/low fat diets.

Can we just recognize the individual factor and stop berating other plans?

[dazzlin182]

Can you get it in your thick heads that Low Carb diets do work, and that Low calorie diets work too?
*shrug* im pretty flexible and nothin against (nor berate) both diets (or woe) whichever works whether for weight loss or long term health ---> is fine with me

[Quinadal]

If low calorie/ low fat diets worked, why is there an obesity/ diabetes epidemic?

[LCanita]

I think that there are SOME people for whom a low fat, low calorie diet is best; but I think for the majority of overweight individuals, a reduction of carbohydrates, particularly processed foods and sugars, is the very best way to attain and maintain health.

Disease and obesity have risen in the Western World as processed carbohydrates and sugar consumption has risen. We need to return to a whole foods diet of meats, vegetables and fruits. This naturally is going to be a lower carbohydrate diet than the Western norm.

[nolin nae]

Thousands of *individuals* have lost weight on low calorie/low fat diets...
...and suffered from diabetes-related disorders (including myocardial infarction), and have been hungry, irratable and lethargic because of these diets. All problems low-carb dieters rarely face. Being thin does not necessarily make one healthy.

[mcsblues]

Well gee Wildcard we wouldn't want to be responsible for you getting "really mad" :)

Of course you can lose weight on a low fat diet. You can also lose weight if you don't eat at all. The point is that in order for me to lose more than 50 pounds on a low fat plan I had too eat so little I was almost constantly hungry. And to keep that weight off I had to give up more and more foods forever. After two years of that is there any wonder the weight started to return? The huge difference with low carb is that I don't have to go hungry, I can eat just about all the foods I want, I don't have to count calories and I feel much better than I ever did on the low fat starvation plan. This is a way of life which is easy and makes you feel great so why would you ever even want to go back?

I have seen both sides of this debate up close. If you mean they both work in that you can lose some weight short term - sure they do. But if you are one of the many people who is predisposed to gain weight, and you want to be happy , healthy and slim for the rest of your life ... there is only one plan for that "works".

Cheers,

Malcolm

[Hellistile]

Let's just suppose we lose the same amount of weight on both plans. But what are the consequences of weight loss on both plans?

Low-fat-high carb: muscle loss, hair loss, diabetes, hunger, irritability, cancer, depression, and other diseases of modern man

Low-carb: health, vitality, energy and the elimination or lessening of diseases of modern man.

So what are you trying to say here Wildcard? Why defend low-fat? This is a low-carb forum.

[tagcaver]

I agree that low fat diets work. I previously lost down to 120 lbs eating low fat. There were a few problems with it though -- first, I had to brainwash myself into believing that a growling stomach meant that I was losing weight and was a good thing. OK, not too bad, after all I don't believe growling stomachs ever killed anyone outright. I could deal with being hungry all the time.
The second problem, however, could kill. I have familial high cholesterol. And my lipid ratio sucked. Since I've put fat back into my diet and the carbs out, my lipid profile has vastly improved. Just look at the data in my signature.


So I think I'll stick to this WOE.

[LucyLucy]

Everyone's body chemistry is different, therefore, what works for one doesn't necessarily work for another. I lived the low-fat, low-cal life for years, all I did was gain weight. I now do low-carb, it works for me and that's great. What I don't enjoy is having to defend my eating choices and WOL to people who have no knowledge and tout the disadvantages of low-carbing because of ill-received information, bad news articles, misinformed food manufacturers, etc...........

LL

[MaryToU]

I agree that both plans can work, depending on the person. I guess for me what it all comes down to is finding an eating style that I can live with. I have be low carbing for over a year now, and find it very easy to do so. But I never personally have been able to get much past 6 weeks when trying to go low fat.

Of course low fat works, for those who can stick with it. The same goes for low carb. Both eating styles have their success stories and the failures. And I would never be one to tell a person what their eating style should be. By the same token, I do not want people preaching to me about my eating style.

[tobe140]

Let's just suppose we lose the same amount of weight on both plans. But what are the consequences of weight loss on both plans?

Low-fat-high carb: muscle loss, hair loss, diabetes, hunger, irritability, cancer, depression, and other diseases of modern man

Low-carb: health, vitality, energy and the elimination or lessening of diseases of modern man.

So what are you trying to say here Wildcard? Why defend low-fat? This is a low-carb forum.

You left out lowcarb ailments...constipation, leg cramps, dizziness, kidney stones, mood swings, hair loss, nd many other things discused in the forums here.

[Hellistile]

You left out lowcarb ailments...constipation, leg cramps, dizziness, kidney stones, mood swings, hair loss, nd many other things discused in the forums here.

I have not suffered from any of the above as you called them "ailments" while low-carbing. Dizziness, mood swings and constipation may appear in the first couple of days as you are withdrawing from carbs but are not a disease of modern man. Besides, constipation is an individual thing and is not exclusively a low-carb phenomenon. Hair loss seems to appear in most males at some point in their life and some women. Kidney stones are not experienced by low-carbers exclusively. Leg cramps strike people of all ages and diet types. I experienced leg cramps while pregnant. I was not low-carbing at the time. I have not experienced them since.

[ItsTheWooo]

Can you get it in your thick heads that Low Carb diets do work, and that Low calorie diets work too?

Why do you think that you have to berate the other method to prove your method superior.

Thousands of *individuals* have lost weight on low carb diets
Thousands of *individuals* have lost weight on low calorie/low fat diets.

Can we just recognize the individual factor and stop berating other plans?
I agree; not *everyone* is overweight because of a problem with insulin resistance/carbohydrate intolerance and I think we need to recognize that fact. When I first found low carb I was totally a preacher of the church of Atkins. As far as I was concerned, obesity was caused by carbs and the way to cure obesity was by restricting carbs -- for all people. The reason I felt this way was because upon limiting glycemic load I improved soooo much that it was hard for me to see past my subjective experiences and realize that not everyone else has the same problem I did (with insulin resistance), and therefore not everyone will have the same recovery (with low carb).

Everyone in my house went on Atkins for awhile - my little sister who is insulin resistant with PCOS, but only modestly overweight (small amount of insulin resistance-related fat like a belly and neck/shoulder fat, but her arms and legs are thin as pins), my other sister who about 10 lbs overweight and a major carb & caffeine addict (but doesn't appear to suffer from insulin resistance), and my mom who is really fancies sweets and about 70 pounds overweight. Their results?

-Mom claims her hunger is diminished on Atkins, which is good and to be expected, however she doesn't experience the easy losses that I did when I first started. To me this implies that she really wasn't and isn't all that insulin resistant, because if she was going on Atkins would take pressure off the resistance by omitting rapidly broken down food. This would have allowed her to become hypoinsulinemic effortlessly (at least in the beginning it should) without needing a big consciously made caloric deficit, thus allowing weight loss. Mom lost only 5 pounds in a month, this includes induction water loss. She does much better when restricting calories, and won't lose unless she restricts them.

-My carb addict sister has had the weirdest experience with Atkins that I've ever heard. She gets HUNGRIER when she's not on carbs... several weeks into the program she still had this huge appetite. Eating things like jelly beans and smarties and sweet tarts and marshmallows (she likes the pure sugar low fat candies) actually suppress appetite for her, whereas she claims very low carb food doesn't tide her over. She lost I think a total of 10 lbs, but again losses are very slow for her, partly because on Atkins she eats way more food. Like my mom, my sister does best when restricting calories. However my sister has an additional quirk in that restricted calorie + moderate-highish carbs seem to be best for her.

-My insulin-resistant sister, unsurprisingly, has done the best with the diet. Her IR fat is melting off, her tummy/neck is much smaller now and I believe her PCOS symptoms are improved. Atkins as written seems to work for her like it does me.

Seeing all the very different responses from my family members has demonstrated to me that low carb is not the answer for everyone. Seeing this first hand has really helped me become open minded to the individual nature of diet. If you are insulin resistant, like me and my sister, than LC or moderate carb is obviously at least part of the answer to managing weight. However for someone like my mom and my sister, LC doesn't seem to offer them much of an advantage. They do better with focusing on the calories mainly and don't really need to worry much about carbs because they don't have the same type or degree of metabolic problems that the insulin resistant do.

[ItsTheWooo]

I have not suffered from any of the above as you called them "ailments" while low-carbing. Dizziness, mood swings and constipation may appear in the first couple of days as you are withdrawing from carbs but are not a disease of modern man. Besides, constipation is an individual thing and is not exclusively a low-carb phenomenon. Hair loss seems to appear in most males at some point in their life and some women. Kidney stones are not experienced by low-carbers exclusively. Leg cramps strike people of all ages and diet types. I experienced leg cramps while pregnant. I was not low-carbing at the time. I have not experienced them since.
I just want to say that I have experienced dizziness on very low carbohydrate levels. All her other symptoms I have not experienced, except for hair loss but that is to be expected when one loses a vast amount of weight with *any* diet.

The dizziness is a unique symptom of carb restriction though, I think. It is a symptom of both low blood pressure and low blood sugar, both of which one runs the risk of on a low carb diet. The low blood pressure happens because if you do very very low carb you might not take in enough potassium to regulate fluid pressure, thus resulting in the low blood pressure. This is very common on induction level carbs, unless one is *very good* about making sure they choose high-potassium food.

Low blood sugar is a different ball of wax. For a normal person, they won't become hypoglycemic with carb restriction because their insulin levels always match the energy in their bodies. The only kind of hypoglycemia a normal person can have is reactive hypoglycemia, and normal people as a rule only experience reactive hypoglycemia by eating ridiculously simple food (like a large quantity of white bread with nothing on it, for example). On LC you can't have "normal" reactive hypoglycemia so low blood sugar isn't really a problem for metabolically normal people. However, for someone with insulin problems & a tendency towards hyperinsulinemia (such as myself), very very low carbs can cause a hypoglycemic episode depending on numerous factors (i.e. inadvertently consuming slightly highish intake of carbs at the previous meal, caffeine consumption, etc all can trigger spikes which result in lows later on).

[Wildcard]

So what are you trying to say here Wildcard? Why defend low-fat? This is a low-carb forum.


Before I type any other replies I just want to say I am defending low carbs. I dont like people coming on here and bashing low carb. This is a forum for low carb bashing, so I came here to bash the bashers, but I am also telling you low carbers that low cal/low can lead to sustained weight loss. I see it every day.

[CheesyPoof]

Wildcard -- I agree with you.

I know healthy people who tend to eat low fat. I know healthy people who tend to just eat whatever they like with no regards to fat - and they are STILL healthy. I know healthy people who eat low carb. I know healthy vegeatarians who eat a ton of carbs. I know healthy vegans. What all of these people seem to have in common is that they DON'T over-eat.

As far as recidivism rates go, I'm not sure that low carb has any better stats than low fat, or calorie-restricted, or any other plan. I know lots of people who can't stick to ANY plan, whether traditionally balanced, low carb, OR low fat.

And I know lots of people who've quite Atkins and SB. And there seem to be lots of second and third-time arounders on this board. Indicating that low-carb doesn't necessarily have any special advantage when it comes to maintaining long-term success.

[Wildcard]

Wildcard -- I agree with you.

I know healthy people who tend to eat low fat. I know healthy people who tend to just eat whatever they like with no regards to fat - and they are STILL healthy. I know healthy people who eat low carb. I know healthy vegeatarians who eat a ton of carbs. I know healthy vegans. What all of these people seem to have in common is that they DON'T over-eat.

As far as recidivism rates go, I'm not sure that low carb has any better stats than low fat, or calorie-restricted, or any other plan. I know lots of people who can't stick to ANY plan, whether traditionally balanced, low carb, OR low fat.

And I know lots of people who've quite Atkins and SB. And there seem to be lots of second and third-time arounders on this board. Indicating that low-carb doesn't necessarily have any special advantage when it comes to maintaining long-term success.

I SAY AMEN!

[LondonIan]

low fat and low carb diets make you lose weight. Starvation makes you lose weight. Hacking your legs off with blunt butter knife make you lose weight.
LC means you lose weight while you retain lean muscle mass and don't go hungry. Sorry - but I think low cal and low fat isn't good for humans.
BTW 95% of people trying the other methods fail.

[RosaAlta]

Recently, one of my low-fat/calorie friends wanted to know what I really believed (as opposed to the party line) about Atkins and why it worked. In response I told her "what I had learned" while doing Atkins.

The first thing I learned is that I have fairly low metabolic resistance. I suspected it after I lost 29% of the weight I needed to during 2 weeks of induction and I firmly believe it now, after managing to lose weight consistently while straying farther and farther from DANDR and remaining sedentary. Simultaneously, through meeting people here, I learned that this makes me damn lucky.

I told my friend that I am someone for whom "eat less, exercise more" would probably work. Then I said:
Atkins was designed for people who can't make that claim. There are people out there who can low-fat or low-calorie till the cows come home and not lose weight. I've met many people (obese or formerly so) online who have tried every diet out there and Atkins (or a similar plan) is the ONLY thing that's ever worked for them. I've also met many people whose heart conditions, diabetes, PCOS, and a hundred other things were significantly helped by Atkins.
That's common knowledge on these boards. IIRC, DANDR says that the plan was initially a dietary prescription for people with high metabolic resistance and related medical conditions. Is it still an effective and healthy program for most people? Sure! Would rampant LCing improve the world? Sure! But that doesn't make it the only path for everyone wanting to be healthy or thin. That's the part I think is easy to forget around here.

The BEST thing Atkins has done for me is redefine my concept of a moderate or reasonable amount of sugar (including making me aware of hidden sugars). This is invaluable and I intend to take it with me for the rest of my life, whether I LC forever or not. As far as I'm concerned, all people -- regardless of weight or eating plan -- would benefit greatly from this change in perspective.

[LilaCotton]

constipation, leg cramps, dizziness, kidney stones, mood swings, hair loss, nd many other things discused in the forums here.

Uh-huh. Constipation--during the first two weeks on Atkins when our fiber intake is pretty darned low. This improves dramatically once a person is off Induction.

Leg cramps: I personally haven't had one leg cramp. I've seen a lot of people on the board who have suffered from this. But here's the clincher: I know something a lot of people don't about that kind of thing and I don't mind sharing! Muscle cramps are generally blamed on a lack of calcium or potassium. Well, that's partly true. But one needs also to take into account the amount of vitamin C and magnesium one is ingesting. If any of these four is lacking from the diet, muscle cramps are likely going to be the result. Also, strenuous exercise, even with adequate portions of above vitamins can result in cramps. This is pretty easy to overcome--no one needs to exercise so strenuously they cause themselves cramps. If we work up to more strenuous amounts of exercise, the cramps will be non-existent.

Dizziness? Rarely. Sure, I've seen a few complaints, but this isn't normal.

Kidney stones: As far as I know you're the only one who complained of kidney stones, and has been pointed out time and time again it was most likely from what you were doing previously as the symptoms started roughly as soon as you started Atkins. Kidney stones don't happen overnight.

Mood swings: Yeppers! We all go through almost hell during the first few days of Induction. If a person's following the plan properly, that lasts for 3-5 days. Considering what you just put your body through, I don't see it as a huge problem.

Hair loss: Sure, some people lose hair. Geez, I lost hair by the handful after every one of my children were born. It sort of came back later. You should've seen me the winter after the most hellish year I've ever had in my life! Hubby had a heart attack the day after Christmas. I was expecting a baby in June, and when she was born she never breathed. During the time between his heart attack and baby being born, I was running my tail off taking care of him, supervising the generous people who'd come to help finish our little house we'd started, and was completely frazzled! The next winter, my hair fell out in droves--from 1.5" across a ponytail to .5" across. I was practically bald! That's called stress! Stress will almost always induce hair loss. The one thing about Atkins, though, is that if your hair does fall out because of the carb withdrawal stress, when it grows back in you may wish it was still falling out. I never lost any because of Atkins and it's just getting thicker and thicker and thicker. Now considering my age, this is really weird, because all the women I know my age are starting to get thinner.
-------------------------------

Okay--having said all of that: I say to people that if you can find some kind of weight loss plan that works for you, then go with it! I couldn't hack low fat. Oh, I tried it--messed with my blood sugar so bad I was a complete mess. And I got sick and tired of being hungry all the time. I've known for my entire adult life my body does better on more fat and protein. But if you have a body that does well on carbs, then go for the low-fat regime! :)

[Lisa N]

You left out lowcarb ailments...constipation, leg cramps, dizziness, kidney stones, mood swings, hair loss, nd many other things discused in the forums here.

You know...I was just over at a WW site and guess what I saw? Posts about hair loss, mood swings and constipation. Along with some more posts like, "Help! I've used up all my points and I'm still hungry!" and "I just had to have my gallbladder removed" (familiar with that one...had to have mine removed after 18 months of low fat dieting!) and "Help! Low blood sugar!"
In fact, if you visit nearly any weight loss site, you will find posts such as this. Low carb is no different. Well...actually it is. The problems experienced on low carb generally tend to clear up within a week or two once your metabolism has made the adjustment from burning primarily glucose for energy to burning fat for energy.
For the most part (yes, I know there are always exceptions), the posts that you find regarding dizziness, etc...are from those still in the induction phase or not following the plan correctly.
Leg cramps? Real familiar with those...I had them nearly nightly when my blood sugars were out of control. Haven't had single one since I started low carbing. :D
Having said all that, if others want to low cal/low fat, they're welcome to it. It's not hurting my feelings any. ;)

[LondonIan]

Pause for thought - read the books, make an argument, then find a response.
I'm not sure you understand the basis of LC: insulin rebound and the altered Krebbs Cycle to switch form sugar/carbs> energy to ketone>energy.

[TarHeel]

What I really want to know is: Why are all the posters in this thread with what look like "real photo avatars" naked?

Well, except for MaryToU, of course.

Carry on,

Kay

[TarHeel]

Oops, sorry, Ian, I missed your post. Why aren't you naked?

Now I see. I missed all of page two. *creeps away, embarrased at my stupidity*

Kay

[Kristine]

Wildcard, this is a support forum specifically for people who have chosen one of the published LC plans, which are all (AFAIK) adequate in calories, protein, and fats. People who want to wing it are welcome, too, but surely you can't expect a lot of support if the majority of us consider what you're doing to be dangerous. That would be like one of us expecting a lot of support if we showed up at a low fat forum.

[kyrie]

I think that low cal/low fat has failed a lot of people here, and so folks understandably hold a grudge. I recognize that it works for a lot of people, though, even if it doesn't work for me, or gave me a bad experience.

[TwilightZ]

Everyone's body chemistry is different, therefore, what works for one doesn't necessarily work for another.

LL

Only to the extent that damage from years of eating poorly may affect proper functioning of organs and systems. Other than that human physiology is human physiology--we are all the same species.

Also, it may appear that what works for one may not work for another, but there are too many variables to conclude that. I was macrobiotic and did essentially high carb and low calorie and lost a ton of weight. Why? I was walking to and from work and after dinner almost every day. I cut out a fair amount of processed food. I went hungry for the entire day and only ate dinner. Others who claim to do high carb/low calorie may eat entirely differently and have no exercise--or--may over-exercise or have excessive stress in their lives causing the release of cortisol which will cause weight gain.

For the same reasons, some people claim that low-carb doesn't work for them, but analysis of diet and lifestyle will usually reveal the unknown variables that are the cause.

[potatofree]

low fat and low carb diets make you lose weight. Starvation makes you lose weight. Hacking your legs off with blunt butter knife make you lose weight.
LC means you lose weight while you retain lean muscle mass and don't go hungry. Sorry - but I think low cal and low fat isn't good for humans.
BTW 95% of people trying the other methods fail.


At risk of sounding "Phillish" :D I believe 95% of people who treat ANY food plan as a quick fix, bandaid solution will fail. There are a LOT of low-carb dropouts too.

<taking away Ian's butterknife>

[featherz]

Going to have to agree here.. At my workplace, pretty much the entire staff started low carb with the new year. At least 20 people. I think one or two are still eating that way and that's it. And those one or two don't appear to have been showing any progress so I have a feeling they aren't following it 24/7. For some, low carb is a godsend and a way of life - for others, it's a 'quick fix' (in their minds) and they fall off the wagon and gain it all back.

Of course, the same thing happens with any 'diet' - if it's not something you can live with in some fashion as a 'way of life' it won't work for you. Although I have reduced my carbs quite a bit, I don't do well on 20 carbs a day -- so I adapted to make my plan something I can live with and still lose weight. Decreased carbs, decreased calories, increased protein. /shrug.

[RosaAlta]

TarHeel, I just figured you had a special filter! :D

[enforma]

Let me preface this post by saying that I am not here to bash anybody. Although this is a LC support forum - this particular sub-topic is entitled "war zone" - which implies (to me, anyway) that debates, opinions (even if they are not anti-carb) are allowable and par for the course. I understand that low carb works for many, (as evidenced by this board) because everybody is different. I have read Atkins - I have fairly extensive knowledge of how the human body works, and I know people on this board are very sensitive to any criticism of LC diets. So here's my $.02

1. To get on the same page - I don't think any responsible nutrition expert (dietician, researcher etc.) will tell you that we eat too many REFINED carbs.

2. Wildcard - nicely summed up! I do think that with extreme opinions either way, there tends to be the requisite bashing of other ways of eating.

3. I think we have to bring ourselves out of the confines of this low carb/low fat box, and realize that eating plans need to be individualized and that exercise needs to be central to any fat loss plan. Not everybody that is anti-low carb is a low-fat promoter and vice versa.

4. I respect people's choice to follow any plan they want, however - I always try to remind people that success should not be measured in days, weeks or even a few months. Success is a lifelong process, and should not be determined by scale weight loss.

5. Taking in more calories than you expend will result in weight gain - period. Doesn't matter whether your calories come from fat, carbs or protein.

6. Fact: Over the past 2 decades, our calorie consumption has increased by 400kcal/day. Yes - many of these have come from refined grains and HFCS - but we have also consumed more calories from fat - despite what you have heard. Allow me to explain; the percentage of fat in the North American diet has decreased slightly - however, since 1990, men have increased their fat consumption from 89 to 101 grams/day. So, the total increase of CALORIES corresponds to the increase weight gain.

7. Hellistile: Where on God's green earth did you come up with those pernicious claims? I can assure you that there has been more incidences of low carb diets resulting in those side effects than high carb diets. Provide your weight loss is gradual (1-2 lbs/wk), you are eating enough protein and complex carbs and you resistance train - muscle loss should not occur. And on a side note; Go FLAMES, GO!

8. Time will tell regarding the safety/efficacy of LC diets. Multitudes of studies have shown that those who exercise the most are able to maintain the most fat loss.

9. Whole grain carbs - lots of them, cause a slow release of insulin, provide energy, dietary fiber, phytochemicals, B vitamins and help curb appetite.

10. Most people on LC diets don't eat as many calories as others. It would be very difficult to eat the same amount of calories by virtually limiting an entire macronutirent category - hence weight loss.

11. Cholesterol may also decrease while low carbing - again, becaue our intelligent liver's know that if the body isn't getting enough caloires, the fat is used up - if not, the liver manufactures cholesterol.

12. Everybody's tastes are different. No diet should make you feel completely deprived, hungry, anxious, irritable, bad breathed, etc. If LC is something you can honestly do without deprivation, and if long-term studies suggest no residual negative affects - great, I'm happy you've found something that works for you. But please - sending a message that "carbs are making us fat" is nonsense. Chocolate bars, Donuts, croisants, danishes are FAT - stop calling them "carbs" (I know - they're technically part "simple carbs").

That's it for now.

[lilli]

The original poster's point is completely valid. Many people do great on low fat diets, and don't mind eating less at all. IMHO, many people on this forum take low carb as an excuse to eat too much (seriously, the rampant advice telling people to eat more [even when not hungry] cuz they haven't gotten enough fat intake for the day is so beyond bad diet advice.)

Dieting is such a personal journey; it's not only about becoming healthier, it's about learning what health IS. I've dieted (rather, experimented with different diets all my life- from vegan to my current protein style) and have known alot about nutrition all thru it. It AMAZES me how many people on this website (and other diet related sites) don't even know the basics,- such as that a proper diet includes vegetables, and that water is necessary.
So, Quindal, were you on a low calorie, low fat balanced diet before atkins? Sorry if i'm wrong, but probably not. Don't blame the other diets. Blame our lack of nutritional knowledge which has been promoted by this country's mass media instigation of absolutely horrid WOE's. For example, all the fast food joints and supermarket shelves full of chemically laden crap for which there is a commercial on T.V.

[Lisa N]

So, Quindal, were you on a low calorie, low fat balanced diet before atkins? Sorry if i'm wrong, but probably not.

I don't know about Quinidal, but I was. ADA diet (low fat, low protein, high carb) and did nothing but gain weight at between 1,200 and 1,500 calories per day (a level at which I can lose on low carb without constantly feeling hungry).

(seriously, the rampant advice telling people to eat more [even when not hungry] cuz they haven't gotten enough fat intake for the day is so beyond bad diet advice.)

In some cases, that may not be the best advice, but the majority of the time when I see that advice given (or give it myself) it is to people who are eating far too little to support even their BMR.
I won't sit here and tell folks that overeating is a good thing, but neither do I support the idea that there is some virtue to be gained from starving yourself. :rolleyes:

[Quinadal]

So, Quindal, were you on a low calorie, low fat balanced diet before atkins?
I was on a 2000 ADA diet for 3 years, I was also on WW, VLCD and a semi macrobiotic diet all on the advice of my doctor over the years.
What did it get me? 330 lbs, fasing blood sugars over 200, high cholesterol, neuropathy, thinning hair, dry flaky skin, migraines, I was always sick, fatigue, always starving and my TOM stopped completely.
While on a 2500+ low carb diet I lost over 50 lbs and ALL the problems the other diets CAUSED.

I wouldn't recommend a LF or Lcal diet to my worst enemy. It will make you sick and you lose almost no fat, only muscle. It hasn't worked since it the idea was introduced and it never will.

[nolin nae]

enforma, i don't want to bash you...but i think you're clueless.
1. To get on the same page - I don't think any responsible nutrition expert (dietician, researcher etc.) will tell you that we eat too many REFINED carbs.are you joking? even the most hard-line low-fat, sugar-lobby-backed, stubborn nutrition groups are recommending cuts in refined carbs! read much?

3. I think we have to bring ourselves out of the confines of this low carb/low fat box, and realize that eating plans need to be individualized and that exercise needs to be central to any fat loss plan. Not everybody that is anti-low carb is a low-fat promoter and vice versa.yes, and the box that the majority of people have been stuck in is the low-fat, high-carb box. you can individualize all you want, but humans are humans and our metabolisms generally work in similar ways.

4. I respect people's choice to follow any plan they want, however - I always try to remind people that success should not be measured in days, weeks or even a few months. Success is a lifelong process, and should not be determined by scale weight loss.yes, and it's a whole lot easier to be involved in a lifelong process with a full stomach and a healthy body.

5. Taking in more calories than you expend will result in weight gain - period. Doesn't matter whether your calories come from fat, carbs or protein.
you've just signaled that you know little to nothing about low-carb and why it works with this statement. from atkins:
Let’s examine the effects of the metabolic advantage in action. Willard Krehl, M.D., of the University of Iowa put two obese women, weighing an average of 286 pounds, on a 1,200-calorie, controlled carbohydrate diet. He then recorded their weight loss, which averaged a half pound daily. To lose that much weight, each woman would have had to burn 1,750 calories a day beyond the 1,200 calories on Krehl's diet. Unless she was exercising vigorously for hours, that would not be the case. It was the composition of their diets that switched them to burning fat for energy.

This advantage is so powerful a weight-loss aid that an eating plan that harnesses it can go one better than fasting. Frederick Benoit, L.C.D.R., M.C., U.S.N., and his associates at the Oakland Naval Hospital in California decided to compare the effectiveness of a controlled carb weight-loss program with fasting. The researchers put seven men weighing between 230 and 290 pounds on a 10-day fast. During that time the men lost an average of 21 pounds each, but most of that was lean body mass; only 7½ pounds constituted body fat. The same men then were put on a controlled carb, high-fat diet of 1,000 calories a day. They then lost an average of 14½ pounds, of which 14 pounds was body fat. In other words, the subjects lost body fat while preserving lean muscle mass—all while eating instead of starving.got it?!

6. Fact: Over the past 2 decades, our calorie consumption has increased by 400kcal/day. Yes - many of these have come from refined grains and HFCS - but we have also consumed more calories from fat - despite what you have heard. Allow me to explain; the percentage of fat in the North American diet has decreased slightly - however, since 1990, men have increased their fat consumption from 89 to 101 grams/day. So, the total increase of CALORIES corresponds to the increase weight gain.
if the calorie increase was low-carb, high-fat/protien we would be talking about how much weight people had lost despite increasing their caloric intakes (see response to #5)

7. Hellistile: Where on God's green earth did you come up with those pernicious claims? I can assure you that there has been more incidences of low carb diets resulting in those side effects than high carb diets. Provide your weight loss is gradual (1-2 lbs/wk), you are eating enough protein and complex carbs and you resistance train - muscle loss should not occur. And on a side note; Go FLAMES, GO!
your assurances don't mean much considering the ignorance you've displayed thus far. please, some studies that back your claims or a retraction.

9. Whole grain carbs - lots of them, cause a slow release of insulin, provide energy, dietary fiber, phytochemicals, B vitamins and help curb appetite. not very sound advice. some whole grain carbs, ok. but, "lots of them"...yikes! fats and protein are what satiate.

10. Most people on LC diets don't eat as many calories as others. It would be very difficult to eat the same amount of calories by virtually limiting an entire macronutirent category - hence weight loss. i'm not sure what "virtually limiting" means, but the fallacy that low-carbers eating fewer calories is the only reason they lose weight has already been exposed (see #5 again).

11. Cholesterol may also decrease while low carbing - again, becaue our intelligent liver's know that if the body isn't getting enough caloires, the fat is used up - if not, the liver manufactures cholesterol. uh huh. and what? while it's true that cholesterol profiles improve for most people on low-carb diets...what does this mean for health? "high" cholesterol levels do not indicate poor health. i can be healthy with "high" cholesterol and unhealthy with "low" cholesterol.

12. Everybody's tastes are different. No diet should make you feel completely deprived, hungry, anxious, irritable, bad breathed, etc. If LC is something you can honestly do without deprivation, and if long-term studies suggest no residual negative affects - great, I'm happy you've found something that works for you. But please - sending a message that "carbs are making us fat" is nonsense. Chocolate bars, Donuts, croisants, danishes are FAT - stop calling them "carbs" (I know - they're technically part "simple carbs"). what is this nonsense?! sugar is giving carbs a bad name? we've been through 30 years of low-fat dogma that has very effectively made people fatter. why must we keep banging our heads against the same wall? you go right ahead with the high-carb, low-fat diets that you think "most nutrition experts" are recommending and see where that lands you. good luck!

[LondonIan]

My 2c worth:
5. Taking in more calories than you expend will result in weight gain - period. Doesn't matter whether your calories come from fat, carbs or protein.If I hear that one more time....once more to the calorie fallacy.
Calorie values are derived from a simple laboratory test which involves burning a material in a furnace. The body does not work in the same way.
Everything has a calorie value: air, hydrogen, cyanide, a lump of coal (very high in calories is coal) even the monitor in front of me. However, if I munched my way through the monitor I doubt it would provide much nutrition.

A calorie of insoluble fibre will provide NO calories, it can't be digested.
The extent to which other foods are fully digested is variable. The extent to which digestion releases the caloric content of each food is dependent on the nature of the molecular chains of each food.

A carb calorie converts quickly to sugars. If you ingest more than your energy requirements, the body says, 'Oh a nice sugar, thanks a lot, I'll keep that for later'.

In the absence of carbs,and only getting your calories from protien and fat, your body doesn't convert the surplus ketones to sugars (i.e. usable calories) - it isn't energy efficient. Instead it excretes it without including it in the Krebbs cycle.

See? It is about the nature of energy conversion (which is complex in omniverous mammals and not fully understood).

[PoofieD]

That's common knowledge on these boards. IIRC, DANDR says that the plan was initially a dietary prescription for people with high metabolic resistance and related medical conditions. Is it still an effective and healthy program for most people? Sure! Would rampant LCing improve the world? Sure! But that doesn't make it the only path for everyone wanting to be healthy or thin. That's the part I think is easy to forget around here.
Ya know if your in this for only one type of success "getting thin" then yes go eat low cal/low fat. But your not ever going to hear me tell you that its a good idea for anyone, unless you have some strange problem that would lead you not to be able to digest the one nutrient we are ALL starved of in the US. Good healthy fat.
You see I lost weight just as is said on this thread with low cal/ low fat. Kept it off as long as I exercised like a maniac and totally ruined my metabolism to the point I am now. where trying to "low cal/low fat" myself would have me dead in months.
What all the "you can lose in many ways" crowd ignores is HOW our bodies work. Yes folks I am going to put my head right out there on the chopping block and tell you all that IGNORING IT has led me and millions of others to runining our ability to handle carbs at any point. I was already starting to gain with the "low fat/lo cal" thing that is supposed to be wonderful for us, to finally research why my body has turned on me and found that I abused one of the MOST sensitive systems in my body, that of hormonal ( that NEEDS fat to run BY THE WAY!) more specifiacally my insulin response, or not thanks to "low cal/low fat" non response.
Please. If you want to go on about that do. Please if you want to be on boards about that do
What REALLY gets forgotten is that this board *****IS***** about low carbing and NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN. Its the silly people that expect us to hold your hand while you try what is obviously been failing for the past 50 years in america. Go lower fat and lower calories. We only have fat starved people thanks to that.
IF you want low fat/low carlorie then GET your butts to that kind of board, but for pity sake let me hear the end of the phrase "that gets "forgotten" around "here in reference to "there are other diets'. We know that. We tried them. They stink. We dont' want to do them talk about them or otherwise. IF we did we would go to those boards.
But no more illogic from the masses PPULLLLLEZZE!

[potatofree]

Evidentally, enough people want to argue about which diet is better to fill three pages so far. ;)

I realize there are passionate feelings in those who have been failed by low-fat/low-cal in the past. I realize a low-carb bulletin board is likely NOT a good place to preach the virtues relying on "portion control and exercise"...

I just can never get over how what people choose to eat has become another one of those subjects best avoided in "polite conversation". It's right up there with religion and politics!

I was at lunch a while back and a near-riot broke out over what several ladies were having for lunch. There was a WW member, a gastric-bypass patient, a new Atkins convert (for once, I wasn't involved in the debate :D ) and a "I really SHOULD do something about my weight" person.

The zeal with which they all tried to convert the last soul at their table not on a plan was EMBARASSING to say the least! I thought plates would fly... and the venom with which the other plans were attacked was scary. Usually the gastric-bypass woman is unreasonable and catty, but she was the only one who was honest enough to say surgery is a LAST resort, and while it was working for her, it was NOT for everybody.

I thought it was all about finding a plan to make your own, that you are healthy on, happy with, and can sustain for a lifetime? It seems to be about being RIGHT, converting others and trying to dictate what others "need to do"....

[mio1996]

My 2c worth:
If I hear that one more time....once more to the calorie fallacy.
Calorie values are derived from a simple laboratory test which involves burning a material in a furnace. The body does not work in the same way.
Everything has a calorie value: air, hydrogen, cyanide, a lump of coal (very high in calories is coal) even the monitor in front of me. However, if I munched my way through the monitor I doubt it would provide much nutrition.

A calorie of insoluble fibre will provide NO calories, it can't be digested.
The extent to which other foods are fully digested is variable. The extent to which digestion releases the caloric content of each food is dependent on the nature of the molecular chains of each food.

A carb calorie converts quickly to sugars. If you ingest more than your energy requirements, the body says, 'Oh a nice sugar, thanks a lot, I'll keep that for later'.

In the absence of carbs,and only getting your calories from protien and fat, your body doesn't convert the surplus ketones to sugars (i.e. usable calories) - it isn't energy efficient. Instead it excretes it without including it in the Krebbs cycle.

See? It is about the nature of energy conversion (which is complex in omniverous mammals and not fully understood).


Well said, Ian! Coal has the ability to heat a lot of water (therefore, it has many calories), but I thing a man would starve trying to eat it--it is not digestible! We don't know everything about the human body's metabolism and probably never will. What every successful lc'er knows, though, is that PROTEINS AND FATS ARE DIFFERENT THAN SUGARS AND STARCHES! It has been well known in Britain since the 1860's, with the rampant sales of Letter on Corpulence. People just seemed to forget for a while.

ProletarIan--I just love that!

[mio1996]

:lol: Ian, I just noticed your BF...that's a riot!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[featherz]

I was at lunch a while back and a near-riot broke out over what several ladies were having for lunch. There was a WW member, a gastric-bypass patient, a new Atkins convert (for once, I wasn't involved in the debate :D ) and a "I really SHOULD do something about my weight" person.
(snip..)
I thought it was all about finding a plan to make your own, that you are healthy on, happy with, and can sustain for a lifetime? It seems to be about being RIGHT, converting others and trying to dictate what others "need to do"....

Hear hear!! I get asked a lot at work 'how I did it' and if they persist, I will tell them but I NEVER EVER try to 'convert' anyone. It's not MY business how they eat, what they weigh or which diet they are on. My only advice that I generally give out when asked is to point out the fitday site and tell them to try logging intake for a bit. I figure that way they will take a look at what they are eating and think about changing it in SOME way.

If I went to lunch with someone who kept trying to convert me to some diet or another to the point of being obnoxious, that would probably be the last lunch we'd have together for a while. Fortunately that hasn't happened yet. :)

[Lisa N]

I'm with Poofie on this one. I think what "gets forgotten" is that many of us here have already been there, done that with the low fat/low cal/exercise like a maniac thing and got nowhere or got sicker and heavier. Not everyone here got overweight by sitting on the couch stuffing themselves with chips, ice cream and Twinkies.
Are there those for whom the above strategy works? Sure...but my personal opinion on that is that they are few and far between. Keep in mind that 95% of those who attempt weight loss are unsuccessful using that strategy not only in getting the weight off but then in keeping it off long-term. Those are some darn poor success rates. If a medical treatment was that unsuccessful, most doctors would quickly abandon it in search of something more effective. There are no stats for how many are successful with low carb, but at least one of the roadblocks to success is dealt with on low carb...there is no reason for anyone to go hungry unless they choose to.
This is a low carb support forum. What surprises me is that anyone who has been posting here for a while would be surprised at the reactions when someone comes along saying, "let's not forget that there are other diets that people lose weight on as well." or "Just eat less and excercise...that's the answer to all your problems!" :rolleyes:
I don't try to convert anyone, but if someone tries to preach to me the benefits of something I have already tried that made me worse instead of better, they'll likely get an earful from me.

[TwilightZ]

8. Time will tell regarding the safety/efficacy of LC diets.

That's funny--"time will tell." Thirty years of Atkins and you're still saying "time will tell."


Multitudes of studies have shown that those who exercise the most are able to maintain the most fat loss.

That's not what I see. I see people eating high carbs/low fat exercising their butts off, completely unable to keep off weight. And I see people eating low carb as a way of life who sit in front of a monitor all day and have no trouble at all maintaining their weight.

[ItsTheWooo]

Guys, you have to keep in mind that every body is different. This is all the those who are arguing in favor of diet individualization are trying to say.

I refer back to my familial example. Me and my younger sister do quite horribly with high or moderate carbs, probably due to underlying insulin resistance problems. My mother and my other sister on the other hand do much better with lower fat, moderate carb.
A calorie is *not* a calorie, which I totally agree with, but then again differences between calories are not the same for all people either. I pack away rice cakes as fat more readily than an equivalent amount of energy from cream cheese, but not everyone has the same carb tolerance problems I do. My sister and mother seem to lose weight just as effectively on low carb as they do low fat, for them there is no big difference between types of calories.

Not everyone will have a problem with a low fat diet because of carbohydrate metabolism pathology. Some people do, and these people should of course not do the low fat diet. The problem is people see their own experiences and they extrapolate that to all of humanity. Individuals have different experiences and needs, not all of us have the genes for insulin resistance, not all of us will become insulin resistant on a low fat diet, some of us w/o insulin resistance find it a much more effective way of inducing catabolism (due to the high caloric content of fat, limiting it allows one to eat physically "larger" portions of food w/o taking in all the calories or suffering side effects... if we assume they are *not* insulin resistant of course).

[Wildcard]

Thanks to all who have lost successfully on low carb and still dont deride the other plan

Thanks to all who have lost on low cal and still dont deride the other plan.

To the hardliners, we are all still learning our bodies. Please dont be quick to deride another plan because it did not work for *YOU*, unless you've successfully kept of your weight on your plan for ten or more years, then you automatically have a gate pass to say anything derogatory about any other plan.

[mcsblues]

Thanks to all who have lost successfully on low carb and still dont deride the other plan

Thanks to all who have lost on low cal and still dont deride the other plan.

To the hardliners, we are all still learning our bodies. Please dont be quick to deride another plan because it did not work for *YOU*, unless you've successfully kept of your weight on your plan for ten or more years, then you automatically have a gate pass to say anything derogatory about any other plan.

I would have thought that 20+ years of struggling to lose and/or maintain weight loss under the low fat/starvation plan, followed by discovering the huge differences that low carb makes to both, coupled with reading how the Eades and Atkins et al have applied this to thousands of patients for 30+ years and then learning WHY this WOL works so much better, gives me a "gate pass" right now. Another 10 years of maintenance will still only be evidence of why this plan works for ME, based on your logic.

I suggest you actually take the time to read the books and some of the scientific studies, before you dismiss me as a "hardliner" whose opinion is somehow regarded as irrelevant.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[mio1996]

The thing is to me that no matter if low fat, high carb diets work for weight loss or not, the evidence says that THEY CAUSE DIABETES, or at least cause the symptoms to be known. It breaks my heart to know that so many millions of the world's people are partaking of diets that are making them sick. Some of them will develop heart, eye, or kidney disease that could have been prevented by eating lc. Therefore, it would be quite irresponsible of to NOT try to convert everybody I can. It is their choice once they have heard my point of view, of course.
We have to spread the word as far and wide as we can before certain governments try to stifle our outreach. And they will! Powerful grain and sugar lobbies are already crying because we are hurting their SALES OF METABOLIC POISON! Governments and doctors for years have been promoting grains and other harmful carbs for consumption by diabetics, even though the simplest of logic would dictate their need for abstinence from these foods. There is such a trust involved between doctors and their patients. How else can a doctor say "Carbs turn to sugar in your gut, so you need to eat 200-300 grams a day and then take medication to nullify their effect!" What garbage! We (people who know that lc works) are the only hope these people have to live a healthy life. Far and wide, the medical profession is failing them miserably.

[LondonIan]

I think we need a balanced argument about this.

<pause>

Hold on. I'll get me mate.

[Quinadal]

http://shinigami.rydia.net/smileys/smileytown/misc0003.gif

[Lisa N]

You know...for all the talk about how "there are other diets that work, too, you know" I thought about this and I don't know a single person who has been successful at losing and then maintaining on low cal/low fat/high carb. I know one who eats that way, but she has been thin her whole life (has high cholesterol, particularly triglycerides, though).
All the people I know at work who have done Weight Watchers (some multiple times) have regained the weight again and then some. Some have lost down to their goal weights 2 or 3 times only to gain it all back. Most never reached their goal weights, though, and just gained back what they lost and then some.
The one person I know who lost doing Jenny Craig has now gained it all back 1 year later.
I do, however, know of at least 3 people who have lost and maintained for over 2 years (one for over 5) on low carb.
As for the "you can bash the other plan once you've reached goal and then maintained for 10 years", does that mean I can quote those who have? Folks like Drs. Dan and Mary Eades, Dr. Richard Bernstein, Dr. Atkins and Dr. Schwarzbein? All of them fit that criteria and none of them (based on their own experiences with hundreds of patients) have anything good to say about low fat/high carb.

[Wildcard]

If carbs are the source of weight gain, then why is it that nations who eat tons of carbs are generally low weight? China, Japan, most countries in africa? etc

The fact is that overeating is the cause of weight gain. Its just harder to overeat proteins than to overeat carbs.

[LondonIan]

Bit of a myth that I think you'll find. the thin ones were the one's who were starving.

Ever wondered what it means when you know how to make a damn fine soup from duck feet? It means some rich sod has taken your duck.

[Lisa N]

Bit of a myth that I think you'll find. the thin ones were the one's who were starving.

Ever wondered what it means when you know how to make a damn fine soup from duck feet? It means some rich sod has taken your duck.

You make a good point, Ian. Starving tends to make one quite thin over time. ;) Pair that with hard physical labor or active lifestyles despite having too little to eat (calories-wise) and you'll have a thin person. Health is quite another matter.
While Asian countries may have lower reported incidences of heart attack (I have my own theory on why, but that's another discussion), they have higher rates of stroke and certain types of cancers. As I mentioned in another thread, the hot spot in the world currently for new cases of diabetes being diagnosed is Asia, particulary India and China.
Being thin does not necessarily equate to being healthy.

[potatofree]

Actually, the only people I know who have lost and maintained on low fat are the ones who 1. Made the change for life, not just as a "diet" they could go off when they got thin. 2. Didn't substitute a lot of empty junkfood calories or eat whole boxes of Snackwells just because it said "low fat".

I personally feel low-carb is the better plan, but maybe the philosophy for success is applicable to both?

[featherz]

I lost 60 pounds on (very) low cal/ high carb/low fat about 15 years ago. Kept it off for about 10 years, at which time some of it crept back on slowly. Was it because I was still eating that way? Nah, I was eating too much junk. Sweets, chocolate, battered fried onions and generally stuff that isn't allowed on EITHER WOE. :) (Plus I was 15 years older!). The weight came on very slowly, but that was a bad thing because I didn't notice. :(

I've now cut out the 'junk' and eat 125-150 or so carbs a day. Not low carb, but definitely 'lower'. Fat is 30% or so of calories, so not low fat either. I could eat this way forever - and I expect I won't gain it back unless I stop paying attention. :)

Btw, my last blood numbers were excellent and that was before I cut my carbs. Triglycerides: 41!

[Saigo]

The fact is that overeating is the cause of weight gain. Its just harder to overeat proteins than to overeat carbs.

I think you're onto something here. Another way to put it would be, "When I eat a lowfat diet I'm hungry all the time so I load up on carbs, which drives me to crave and eat more carbs, which leads me to being fat. But when I eat a high protein, higher fat, lowcarb, diet my appetite and cravings are greatly lessened, which leads me to eat more sensibly, which leads me to lose excess weight and then maintain a healthy weight."

I'm all about that. :thup:

[RosaAlta]

PoofieD said:
What REALLY gets forgotten is that this board *****IS***** about low carbing and NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN. Its the silly people that expect us to hold your hand while you try what is obviously been failing for the past 50 years in america. Go lower fat and lower calories. We only have fat starved people thanks to that. . . . IF you want low fat/low carlorie then GET your butts to that kind of board, but for pity sake let me hear the end of the phrase "that gets "forgotten" around "here in reference to "there are other diets'. We know that. We tried them. They stink. We dont' want to do them talk about them or otherwise.
I lost 31 lbs on Atkins and I am proud to tell people that. I am having a hard time sticking to my maintenance plan right now, but I intend to get my act together and adhere to a moderate-to-low-carb plan for life. I was not advocating low fat dieting in my previous post and I never said that "thin" was the only measure of "healthy." That's ridiculous.

What I was trying to say was that some people, such as myself, can lose weight and be healthy doing other things besides LC. I believe that's true; obviously you don't. That's fine.

Lisa N said:
I'm with Poofie on this one. I think what "gets forgotten" is that many of us here have already been there, done that with the low fat/low cal/exercise like a maniac thing and got nowhere or got sicker and heavier. Not everyone here got overweight by sitting on the couch stuffing themselves with chips, ice cream and Twinkies. . . . This is a low carb support forum. What surprises me is that anyone who has been posting here for a while would be surprised at the reactions when someone comes along saying, "let's not forget that there are other diets that people lose weight on as well." or "Just eat less and excercise...that's the answer to all your problems!"

Let me stand up right now and say that I AM one of those people who gained weight by sitting on the couch and stuffing myself with Twinkies (DQ Blizzards and onion rings, actually). I made a complete pig of myself during my pregnancy, felt bad about it the whole time and still did it anyway. I'm ashamed to say that, but it's true.

I know that most of the people here are not in that category. I can read! I know that many posters have struggled their whole lives with weight, have 400 times the willpower I do, and never had success on any other plan. I'm pretty sure my post upthread said that. The only person that I said needed to "eat less and exercise more" was me.

Wildcard's initial post said that he'd like to see some posters here, on a low-carb board, admit that other types of eating plans can work for some people and that LC isn't the "one true path." My post was in response to that. I don't think it's the one true path. It is, however, the path I have chosen and frequently defend to others in real life.

[TwilightZ]

There are two issues being addressed here, weight loss and health. I'll testify to the fact that you can lose weight eating lowfat, depending on how you do it.

But, as MIO1996 correctly pointed out, lowcarb is the ONLY healthy way to do it--and the healthiest way to continue eating for the rest of one's life. That doesn't vary from person to person--that is based on human physiology--PERIOD!

[ItsTheWooo]

Actually, the only people I know who have lost and maintained on low fat are the ones who 1. Made the change for life, not just as a "diet" they could go off when they got thin. 2. Didn't substitute a lot of empty junkfood calories or eat whole boxes of Snackwells just because it said "low fat".

I personally feel low-carb is the better plan, but maybe the philosophy for success is applicable to both?
I agree, potatofree.

The only thing I would interject is that while for the majority of people it's how you diet not what kind of diet you are on that makes the difference, people with sugar metabolism issues have a unique problem. I believe people with sugar metabolism problems just physically *can not* do low fat and be successful. Even if they do low fat the right way - without eating tons of calories from refined carbs (white bread & rice & sugar), and instead eating more whole grains & fibrous fruit & veggies & lean cuts of meat - they still probably won't be as well off as they would have been on a moderate LC plan.

Fortunately, only a smallish percentage of the population fall into this category. Having type 2 diabetes & other glucose tolerance disorders, PCOS, and a tendency to be morbidly obese are all good indicators that your body cannot tolerate carbohydrate. Though these are relatively common diseases (up to 10% of women have PCOS, 2% of the population is morbidly obese, and many people have diabetes & IGT), I think the majority of overweight people (65% of the population) isn't so bad off with carbs that they *need* a very strict low carb plan.

I think we would all be well served to dump the refined carbs in our diets, however the majority of people can be very healthy simply by cutting back on refined crap and keeping the percentages something like 30%/25%/45% (fat/protein/carb). Moderate fat, moderate carb, adequate protein is ideal for a normal healthy person. Low carb is for people who have either damaged their metabolisms from improper diet, have a genetic susceptibility to poor sugar metabolism, or a combination of both. It's really not *necessary* for a healthy person to restrict carbs to 15, 10, or 5 percent of total calories since they don't have the same problems with them that we do.

[ItsTheWooo]

I lost 60 pounds on (very) low cal/ high carb/low fat about 15 years ago. Kept it off for about 10 years, at which time some of it crept back on slowly. Was it because I was still eating that way? Nah, I was eating too much junk. Sweets, chocolate, battered fried onions and generally stuff that isn't allowed on EITHER WOE. :) (Plus I was 15 years older!). The weight came on very slowly, but that was a bad thing because I didn't notice. :(

I've now cut out the 'junk' and eat 125-150 or so carbs a day. Not low carb, but definitely 'lower'. Fat is 30% or so of calories, so not low fat either. I could eat this way forever - and I expect I won't gain it back unless I stop paying attention. :)

Btw, my last blood numbers were excellent and that was before I cut my carbs. Triglycerides: 41!

Congrats on your success :)

I find my weight loss really slows down when I eat upper 30s and low 40s of carbs, however watching my calories allows me to lose. Weight loss comes to a screeching halt for me when I eat more than 60 carbs regularly, and I simply cannot cut calories low enough to both lose weight without unhealthfully starving my body. I imagine on 125-150 carbs I would be a wreck & probably gaining weight even on "normal" calorie levels.

Of course I'm not all that active and have several indicators of sugar metabolism problems (tendency towards very morbidly obese, PCOS, other misc symptoms) so this intolerance for carbohydrate is to be expected. You are probably more active & don't have the same severity or kind of metabolism issues the carbohydrate sensitive do. It just goes to show how different metabolisms & lifestyles can differently handle different diets.

[ItsTheWooo]

PoofieD said:

I lost 31 lbs on Atkins and I am proud to tell people that. I am having a hard time sticking to my maintenance plan right now, but I intend to get my act together and adhere to a moderate-to-low-carb plan for life. I was not advocating low fat dieting in my previous post and I never said that "thin" was the only measure of "healthy." That's ridiculous.

What I was trying to say was that some people, such as myself, can lose weight and be healthy doing other things besides LC. I believe that's true; obviously you don't. That's fine.

Lisa N said:


Let me stand up right now and say that I AM one of those people who gained weight by sitting on the couch and stuffing myself with Twinkies (DQ Blizzards and onion rings, actually). I made a complete pig of myself during my pregnancy, felt bad about it the whole time and still did it anyway. I'm ashamed to say that, but it's true.

I know that most of the people here are not in that category. I can read! I know that many posters have struggled their whole lives with weight, have 400 times the willpower I do, and never had success on any other plan. I'm pretty sure my post upthread said that. The only person that I said needed to "eat less and exercise more" was me.

Wildcard's initial post said that he'd like to see some posters here, on a low-carb board, admit that other types of eating plans can work for some people and that LC isn't the "one true path." My post was in response to that. I don't think it's the one true path. It is, however, the path I have chosen and frequently defend to others in real life.

Not to knock anyone, *however* I can't but help question your supposition that overweight people who got that way at least partially by intentionally eating a lot are in the minority.

I think overweight and obesity tend to be multifactored diseases. Some people their overweight is a cut and dry issue: they are fat because of a metabolism disease. They are fat because of emotional eating. Or, they are fat simply because they like eating because it's a hobby for them. However, I think the majority of overweight people are overweight because of 1 or all of those factors.

I know this is true in my case. While it is true I DID have metabolic issues which undoubtedly caused a lot of my weight problem either directly (hyperinsulinemia making fat burning impossible/very hard) or indirectly (desire for food excessive), I am *not* going to lie and say I didn't over eat or ate very healthfully.

I certainly did over eat. My worst habit, by far, was my sweet drink addiction. That alone probably contributed to a sizable portion of my excess pounds. I refused to drink diet drinks, I drank full sugar juices only ... and several cups daily. Sure I was addicted to it which is technically a physical problem, still I made the conscious *choice* to feed that addiction when I had the option to break it, simply because I preferred the taste of sugar to aspartame/water. Also, I tended to eat until I was very full. Even though I never did the thing where you grab a bag of chips and eat the whole bag on the couch, I DID eat far too large food portions at meals at times.
Yes, even though I did eat a fairly "decent" diet that complied mostly with the food pyramid (I ate lots of plant foods and meat, I did not live off of junk food), I was *no stranger* to my junkfood. I ate takeout on average of once a week, or once every other week. I would sometimes have meals comprised of a glass of milk and cookies too (think: 16 ounces of milk + 6 oreos with a hostess snack cake! Ugh!).

So even though I do think physical problems out of my control at least partly contributed to my weight, my choices did pile on the pounds as well. Also, it's important to remember that unhealthy eating habits cause the physical problems too. Eating too many calories on purpose WILL cause the high insulin levels, at least to a degree. It is uncertain to me exactly how much of the physical metabolic problems I have were caused by genetics/normal environment, and how much of it I caused by eating poorly.

Anyway, what I am saying is that for most overweight people I think this is a multifactored issue, and the more complex your weight problem appears to be, the more complex the causes are as well. While I am sure there are many unfortunate overweight people out there who got larger even though they were doing everything right simply because of physical problems, I don't think most overweight people fall into this category. If the obese & overweight were that way primarily because of physical disease, overweight wouldn't be more common today in our junkfood, convenience - lifestyle saturated environment than in the past.

[featherz]

Congrats on your success :)

Thank you! Of course YOUR success is considerably more impressive. :)

I love exercise, always have. Probably it's the only reason I didn't get bigger than I did. :) And I of course do watch calories - at my current activity levels I am losing 1-1.5 pounds a week at 1500 calories a day. I switch to 2K on the weekends to give the metabolism a boost, but stay 'on plan' with reduced carbs and increased protein (40 30 30).

However, I think lower carb programs are great and would never put them down! I am trying to keep my husband on his right now. :) He does well but tends to eat too many 'frankenfoods' - an entire box of low carb ice cream sandwiches at a sitting is not 'low carb'. /sigh.

There lies the problem with this discussion as others have pointed out. Low fat types cannot eat snackwells by the box and lose weight (IMO) just like low carbers can't sit down with a few boxes of 'carbwells' (or whatever they are called).. :) :)

I love this board. It's the best diet board around with all these discussions. :)

[kyrie]

Since people have kept talking about this, I'd like to share something.

When I was 13, I went to Weight Watchers. This was back before the whole point system. I went to a couple teen meetings, and I followed this little book that the dietician had filled out for me. I was meticulous. I measured everything. I gained weight.

At my weigh in, the dietician asked if I had followed the diet, and I said yes. She didn't believe me, and told me there wasn't any point to lying.

I stuck with it for a few months, going to meetings and measuring my food. They even brought me to the lowest calorie consumption that was safe for my age, and I was going to aerobics twice a week. I still didn't lose. I was only 35 pounds overweight at the time, but I don't think I was ashamed of it until I started WW.

I've tried the low fat thing, even going vegetarian for 5 years. I just kept gaining. I even tried WW points a few years back. I was really hungry and hypoglycemia gave me anxiety attacks. I didn't lose.

Now, for the first &#~$ing time in my life, I'm losing weight on Atkins. I'm consuming about 2000 calories a day, and I'm losing weight. I've never lost weight before in my life, but it's happening now. I don't think I could possibly say that enough.

Maybe everyone has the same human physiology, just not me?

[iceyfire77]

I lost about 60 lbs. low fat/low cal....i have this huge appetite. Atkins supports that for me lol....even if i'm not losing, i'd rather be eating a lot and not gaining hehe. I also have PCOS and I now get my period on a pretty regular basis because of the switch to LC. Each man/woman for him/herself, I always say! LOL

[thinmom2b]

How can everyone be so hypocritical? We get mad when people question us for being on low carb. When they say that its unhealthy and our cholesterol is going to go sky high.

Why are you going to do the same to someone on low cal or low fat? Let them be. If it works for them then why are you arguing that they shouldn't do it.

Let everyone have their own beliefs and ideals. This planet would be a better place!!

[Ladycody]

Wildcard...just need to respond to the China, Japan, Africa thing. "If carbs are the source of weight gain, then why is it that nations who eat tons of carbs are generally low weight? China, Japan, most countries in africa? etc"


All of those countries named are experiencing noticed weight gain as more and more processed foods become available. Especially Japan and China in the urban areas.

I worked with a staff of about 50 asians at a 5 star hotel in housekeeping for over 2 years...I can tell you that 2/3 of them were overweight...and those that weren't ate a very typical TRUE asian menu of protein and veggies...with a SMALL amount of rice. I watched what they ate in the cafeterias and ate with them at "dim sum" in china town(PS: true chicken fingers are honest to god chicken feet ...their food is VERY different than what you might think...no batters etc)...I talked often about their foods and lives with them. Many of the foods that they now eat are only eaten here...not in china. They simply didnt have access to the flours, sweets, etc that they can get (and afford) while living here.

Most of those countries NEVER ate a high amount of carbs...that's simply an attribute assigned by us. In all of those countries...they eat far more veggies and protein than carbs...carbs simply arent readily available and are HARD WORK for the peasant class (the majority) to process.

If you'd like to look at a culture that has a history of eating a high carb diet...take Italy...a country with an inarguable weight problem throughout its society.

Just wanted to make a note.

[westerner]

If you'd like to look at a culture that has a history of eating a high carb diet...take Italy...a country with an inarguable weight problem throughout its society.
Not sure about that. Certain practictioners are touting the traditional mediterranean diet, which includes whole grains, fruits, vegetables, fish, chicken, olive oil, yogurt, cheese, and wine, citing lower rates of heart disease, stroke, and obesity in Greece and southern Italy. Whether it makes sense to try to replicate this diet in the U.S. without the traditionally accompanying exercise is another question.

[Ladycody]

Agreed...should have specified northern Italy...some of the primary benefits touted by the mediteranean diet are from olive oil (lots), garlic, wine, and use of red meat only once or twice a month. Northern italy eats a bit differently but...point made. Something else that I should have been mentioned is that they are, as a rule, a VERY active people (esp in the med)and the problems with weight tend to be those who tend the home and or no longer work (women and older folks). This is not a phenomena common in China or Africa so...still standing by my earlier post. Given a northen italian woman who is sedentary (relatively) on northern italian food vs A Chinese woman who is sedentary on a typical asian diet(in the same income range) You are far more likely to find weight gain in the Italian (God bless them...love their food...my Nana was right off the boat).

[JL53563]

"Thousands of *individuals* have lost weight on low calorie/low fat diets."

Yes, and 95% of them gain the weight back because it is very difficult for most people to maintain that way of eating. I find the low carb WOE extremely easy to maintain.