What do you consider to be slow?

[Candi]

I'm curious what people consider to be a "slow loser" At first I kept thinking about those few people that lost like 60lbs in 4/5 months.. I wonder just how many people actaully do that? I was always comparing my loss to theirs thinking that I must have been doing something wrong because I wasn't loosing that fast. I'm speaking for females.. I know that things are diffrent for guys.. lucky them. But at what point do you consider to be a slower loser? I am sure everyone has their own opinion. I personally think I am a slow one. 15lbs in just a little over 6 weeks now. But then I realize that there are some people who are at a much slower rate than I am. Is it basically anything less thatn 2lbs a week? Or maybe 5 a month? Just curious?

[tamarian]

I think "normal" is the following:

Males: 1% per week from the difference between current weight to the 15% target of body fat.

Women: 1% per week from the difference between current weight to the 22% target of body fat.

Slow would be less that 0.5%

The above percentage of fat, are the ones your body expects. Once you reach them, it takes more than dieting to bypass them.

Common misconception for slow is calulating the 1% based on target weight. Or, basing the 1% on current weight, rather than the difference.

Wa'il

[Atriana]

Your weight loss is about double what mine is, (with no cheating)! So, I wouldn't call yours slow at all - I guess it is just a matter of perspective.

[Natrushka]

Atriana's right... it is all a matter of perspective. Weight loss shouldnt be a race... comparing what one person has lost with what another has can just be demoralizing... everyone's metabolism is so different. Factor in which plan they are following makes a difference too. Someone on Atkins will lose faster than someone following the Somers Plan, or Schwarzbein simply because it's a more carb restrictive program.

Feeling good about yourself and how you're doing is the key.

My two cents,
Nat

[Karen]

For me, any weight lost is a miracle after living fat for so long.

I steadily gained weight for 22 years! Why, if it takes another year to reach my goal, that's fine with me. You do it when and as you're ready to accept it on terms dictated by your body and by freeing your mind - not your ego.

Karen

[alecmcq]

Candi
I think you are losing at about the right rate. It is certainly not slow! Remember that for each pound you lose you have to have a deficit of 3500 calories. If you have lost 16lbs in 6 weeks, this is about 2.5lbs a week, which is a calorie deficit of nearly 9000 calories, over 1000 cals per day. This is a lot. I hope that you are doing this by eating 500 less calories and burning 500 more calories by exercise per day. If it is all through fewer calories, you could be starving your metabolism and burning protein (your muscles, which are the things that burn the most calories all the time).

Let's look at the other example you gave: 60lbs lost in let's say 4 months. This is approx 4lbs lost per week, which is a calorie deficit of 14000 cals per week, or 2000 cals per day. This is huge. Either this person is eating nothing but celery, or they are training for a marathon, or both!!

Much of the fantastic weight loss experienced initially in lots of diets people go on is water loss and has nothing to do with body fat.

Keep going, I reckon you are doing really well!


Tamarian
Your 1% rule looks on the low side to me. Your rule suggests that an 85kg man needing to become 75kg at 15% body fat will/should lose 0.1kg per week. That's about a quarter of a pound. Not a lot: a weekly cal deficit of 850, or about 100 cals per day. Everyone should be able to lose weight more than this, especially if they do it by exercise rather than reducing cal intake.

I'd say 5% is more the mark.

[Natrushka]

Originally posted by alecmcq
I'd say 5% is more the mark.

I think you're off as well, alec. If I were to lose 5% a week I'd be losing 4 lbs a week (ok, so i am losing an average of 4lbs per week now, however I doubt that will continue until I reach goal - and No I dont eat just celery, and I do workout quite strenuously ;) )

I had been told 5% (of body fat) for the first month and 2% per month after was normal.

Nat

[tamarian]

Originally posted by alecmcq
Tamarian
Your 1% rule looks on the low side to me. Your rule suggests that an 85kg man needing to become 75kg at 15% body fat will/should lose 0.1kg per week. That's about a quarter of a pound. Not a lot: a weekly cal deficit of 850, or about 100 cals per day. Everyone should be able to lose weight more than this, especially if they do it by exercise rather than reducing cal intake.

I'd say 5% is more the mark.

Welcome aboard Alecmcq!

Thanks for pointing this out, I was actually thinking 10% per month. Of course, this is just guess work on my part. :)

Nat,

The % is from current weight. i.e. after tou lose 4 lbs, the percentage will change based on your new current weight.

Wa'il

[Natrushka]

Originally posted by tamarian
Nat, The % is from current weight. i.e. after tou lose 4 lbs, the percentage will change based on your new current weight.

mmmmm then I guess I better slow down ay? I must be doing something wrong :rolleyes:

N

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Natrushka


mmmmm then I guess I better slow down ay? I must be doing something wrong :rolleyes:

N

Nah, enjoy it while you can. :)

Some of us who yo-yo dieted get slower rates. But if your body is cooperating, and you're eating right, I won't slow down even if I drop 10 lbs a day!

Wa'il

[joanne42]

Okay Okay I need to throw a little humour in this.. I consider a turtle slow.>ROFL>>>sorry peoples I needed this.. :roll:

[Elihnig]

The calories don't matter...if you are eating low-carb, you have a metabolic advantage. Dr. Atkin's New Diet Revolution.

"Now on the Atkin's diet, Harry was losing 3.9 pounds a week, which means that according to conventional calorie theory, he would have to be taking in 1950 fewer calories a day than he burned in energy. We already know that at 2129 calories a day, he was taking in 250 calories a day too many. Thus Harry's break-even point is 1879 calories a day. To lose 3.9 calories pounds a week, he should be taking in 1879 calories minus 1950 calories, or -71 calories a day--clearly an impossibility since you can't eat less than nothing.

You've seen Harry's menu. In fact, that menu calculates out to 1928 calories a day. Harry is eating 49 calories a day over the break-even point and therefore, according to calorie theory, he should be gaining 0.1 pound a week, and after 13 weeks on the Atkins diet he should have gained 1.3 pounds, not lost 50.

All the calories Harry eats over and above -71 is metabolic advantage. That means he has a metabolic advantage of 1999 calories a day. Impossible? Not according to the research that's been done on low-carbohydrate dieting, and not according to the facts of Harry Kronburg's case.

The metabolic advantage is there. It can't be disguised, evaded, put down to water weight, or wished away....

Back when I wrote my first book, I described a patient of mine who lost 5 pounds a week for 17 weeks, 85 pounds in all, while consuming enough meat that his documented food intake was 3000 calories per day (2 1/2 pounds of red meat, plus a cheese omelet).

By not eating carbohydrate, this patient, like Harry Kronberg, had stimulated the release of FMS to sustain the breakdown of his fat stores. This lipolysis (fat dissolving) became his major metabolic event. He, too, had created a metabolic advantage......

From studying the medical literature, which, as you've seen, is in surprising agreement on this point, and from studying my own patients, I can safely say that the bonus benefit of switching from high-to ultra-low-carbohydrate diets of the same caloric content varies from one-half to three pounds per week. This may not seem like a lot, but done for a year that calculates out to from 25 to 156 pounds of extra body fat lost.

Henceforth, the AMA will never be able to say metabolic advantage doesn't exist. The strongest statement they can make in the future is "Well, yes, there is a proven advantage, but why would you want it?"

To have an edge, a bonus, the vigorish, the odds on your side. Would you want that? You could bet the ranch on it.

May the Edge be with you." pp. 77-79 paperback edition


I can't indent so I used returns with spaces. And yes, I have experienced this metabolic advantage myself. Don't be hungry any more, eat meat!

Elihnig

[Ka3n]

Feeling good about yourself and how you're doing is the key.
I agree with you Nat. People on certain medications or have a higher degree of metabolic resistance are going to lose it more slowly. It's frustrating when I look at other people's weightloss as a yard stick to what I should be loosing. I'm happier just finding what works best for my weight loss and doing it...day by day...inch by inch....pound by pound! :D

[fredonian]

The closer you get to your goal weight....the slower it comes off. I suppose the old pounds become cemented over the years. I had once been at 220, which was my first big plateu. I spent weeks trying to beat it. I finally hit 118 after weeks of harsh excercise. For personal reasons, I then went off the diet for about 3 months and gained up to 245lbs. I was out of control. I recall mainly gaining weight from eating sweets again. But 245 hit me like a rock and I snapped back on the diet. I am going to be patient when I hit 220 this time and hold to my guns.

[TryAgain]

It's helpful to hear other people think they're going slowly. I just completed my 2 week induction & lost 6 pounds. I felt really discouraged yesterday. Ran farther that usual, but was in tears most ofthe way. So many people seem to lose so much on induction, it was difficult for me yesterday to feel successful.

I'm going for a major physical this morning. It will be interesting to see my bloodwork results, etc. But I'm not looking forwardto the treadmill.

My doctor is, however, supportive of the Atkins diet. He's had other patients who have done well on it.

[r.mines]

You're doing fine, TryAgain!

Believe it or not, when you don't have that much to lose (and you don't), six pounds on Induction is great! When I started Atkins a year ago, like you, I had about 40 pounds to lose. I lost TWO on Induction. A year later, I'm down about 25 pounds. That doesn't sound like much, but it sure beats GAINING 25 pounds, which is where I was heading pre-Atkins!

And while we're changing our eating habits, we're obtaining related health benefits: better blood profiles, better dental health (yes), plus many of us start or step up an exercise program. And we feel better about ourselves! Really, it's about more than just losing weight quickly!

Rachel

[alecmcq]

Elihnig
I am intrigued by the "Metabolic Advantage" Theory. Could you please explain some more? I had understood that by increasing your metabolism you can burn more calories without actually doing anything, which is great.

But forgive me for being skeptical about stories of people who lose more weight than they burn in calories. I mean, where does the fat go? How does it pass out of the body after the fat is "dissolved"? Does it somehow get passed out with other body waste?
Cheers
Alec

[Karen]

The whole science is explained very well in Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution in the Metabolic Advantage chapter. It's great information to add to your arsenal of LC tools and you don't have to be an Atkins follower to benefit from the information. While he didn't exactly invent LC, he has done much to bring it into public view.

Karen

[alecmcq]

I am afraid I don't have that book. Could you please explain it to me in simple terms?
Thanks
Alec

[doreen T]

hi alecmq,

There's a bit of an explanation at the official Atkins website, http://atkinscenter.com .. note, the site has undergone a monumental facelift and rearrangement lately, and the program is no longer called the New Diet Revolution. It's now known as The Atkins Nutritional Approach, and the Metabolic Advantage is simply called --- Benefits of the Atkins Nutritional Approach

Diets high in sugar and refined carbohydrates like bread, pasta, cereal, and other mainly 'low-fat' processed foods increase your body's production of insulin. When insulin is at high levels in the body, the food you eat can get readily converted into body fat, in the form of triglycerides (to top it off, high triglyceride levels in the body are one of the greatest risk factors for heart disease).

Even worse, high carbohydrate meals tend to leave you less satisfied than those that contain adequate fat levels; so you eat more and get hungrier sooner. If you find this hard to believe, think about how much pasta you can eat at lunch and then how hungry you are running to the vending machine for another 'carbo-fix' in the mid-afternoon. If the pasta you ate was really giving your body what it needed, you would stay full until dinner time. So the typical low-protein, low-fat meal leaves you eating more and hungry sooner.

So what should you do? Get off the insulin-generating roller coaster of the low-fat diet and start cutting down on your carbohydrate consumption, especially the worst offenders: sugar, white flour and other refined carbohydrate-based products. What can you expect from this? Three wonderful results: You'll start to burn fat for energy:
Since carbohydrates are the body's primary energy source, you rarely use your secondary energy source -- your own body fat -- for energy unless you restrict carbohydrate consumption. This offers a lifetime of body fat burning, which is the goal of most people trying to lose weight.

You won't feel hungry in between meals:
The biggest battle that most people have with weight loss is the constant obsession with food (for example, if you've ever thought about dinner when you're eating lunch). Again, much of this is caused by blood sugar fluctuations that are aggravated by carbohydrate consumption (especially the refined kind). By cutting the carbs, you'll maintain a more even blood sugar level throughout the day. No more false hunger pains or mid-afternoon brain drains.

Your overall health will improve and you'll feel better:
Many of the toxins you take into your body are stored in your fat cells. By getting your body to burn stored fat, you allow it to clean itself out. Combined with the benefits of stable blood sugar, the end result is that many common ailments you have been experiencing could well be alleviated. Fatigue, irritability, depression, headaches, and even many forms of joint and muscular pain simply go away. Furthermore, you should see a significant improvement in your blood profile, (including cholesterol and blood pressure levels). All this leads to better health and well-being-- something all of us strive to bring into our lives.http://atkinscenter.com/started_story.asp?startedID=2Regarding your question about where does the fat go? ... It gets burned as fuel. When fuel is burned, it releases .. a) a unit of heat-energy, ie a calorie (or kilojoule) .. b) carbon dioxide (CO2)... and c) water (H20). The carbon dioxide gets breathed out through the lungs, and the water is eliminated in urine, sweat, other body fluids, etc ... Obviously, this is very simplistic .. and there are other waste-products of fat-burning which are dealt with and eliminated by the body. A good analogy is a tank of gasoline. When you drive your car, the fuel is burned. You don't end up with a tank and system still full of gas, it is emptied!

hope this has been helpful :)

Doreen

[alecmcq]

Doreen
Yes, this has been useful. However, it doesn't explain the point made by Elihnig that "calories don't matter", and the example from Atkins about Harry, who seemed to be losing more weight/calories than he was burning.

Your post implies that you agree with me that there is nothing "special" going on here, simply that we are taking in less calories than we are burning (even if the burning is thankfully being increased by what we eat!).

I was intrigued Elihnig's post, which seemed to claim that something else is going on here beyond simple calorie deficit. It there is something else, I would like to understand what it is.
Cheers
Alec

[liddle]

Joanne42 Hey, I have 20 more pounds to go, WANNA RACE? LOL :p Just kidding. All this talk about fast, slow, loosing. I'm just glad it's coming off!!!
Heather

[Candi]

Even though I feel I'm going at a slow rate. I still feel comfortable with it. Some people do say that it tooke them along time to get this way and so it can take a while to get it off. I guess I just see that a little bit diffrently because it only took me 5 months to get this way.. When I was pregnant and had many medical problems and was on bed rest for 5 months where I could only get up to go to the restroom. and for the last 2 I wasn't even allowed to do that.. So I guess even though I'm not loosing as fast as I would like. I'm still happy to be losing period.. and I know its good to go slow.. I have this horrible fear of having sagging skin when I'm done. and I know if you go slower you have a smaller chance of that happening.. But still there are some people like this lady here http://www.geocities.com/mmelody24/ who last 100 lbs in 5 months and then another 32 in less than 2 months for a total of 132 lbs in just under 7 months. She is getting ready this week to go for surgery to get rid of all the extra skin she has.. but still to think of 132 in 7 months. Thats a very fast loss.

[liddle]

WOW! That is a great story! But I want to know how she has time to exercise 2-3 times a day!

[Homegirl]

Something I have observed when I am getting a little frustrated at how slow things seem to be moving along either with inches lost or scale weight lost is that my face is thinner, my fingers are thinner, my wrist is much thinner, heck I have even lost weight on the top of my feet (and they weren't even big to begin with!) and my shoes are looser!!!!

I guess what I am trying to say is that the fat is disappearing. It's just that it's sometimes disappearing from places that we aren't necessarily measuring by tape or by scale :D!

[diamondgal]

hi, i agree with you, i am losing in the same places, i am glad to be losing( although it is slow for me) i wish it was my behind that was shrinking. :wave:

[IslandGirl]

or there wouldn't be a need for books on the subject... up to and including Dr. A's, the Eades' Protein Power, Sears' The Zone, etc.

If you wish to spend the time (and occasionally a small amount of money, such as $6 or less for a paperback) that we have spent, looking into ketones and ketosis, glucagon and insulin ratios, Basal Metabolic Rate and the like, perhaps you will be able to spend the time to come up with the one-sentence answer to your own skepticism...

Empirically speaking, this forum (and others) are full of the evidence that the basic method "low or controlled carbohydrate" works. The theories abound and are worded many ways. The "losers" vary at least as much, some seem to lose incredible amounts (literally incredible) in a short time, others do not. There are extremes in every spectrum.

Good luck to you in your personal search for understanding.

PS: in my opinion, the fat is flushed with other bodywastes, or at least the unused byproducts of fat breakdown, called ketones, which represent calorie-bearing energy unused. There ya go.

[doreen T]

Atkins New Diet Revolution is excellent, tried and true, but one of the drawbacks to the book is that he spends a lot of print & paper defending his program, and not really explaining the nitty gritty behind it. So, I pored over all my books about low-carbing (check my profile for a list), trying to find what it is beyond just energy deficit (ie, fewer calories) and ketosis (fat-burning) ... that makes up the "metabolic advantage" of a restricted carbohydrate diet. I was getting really frustrated, because nobody described a specific "metabolic advantage". Then it hit me .... the missing link is ... INSULIN.

Insulin doesn't just move sugar out of the bloodstream into the cells. Insulin is the fat-STORING hormone as well. In a carb-restricted diet, insulin levels are kept low and steady ... whereas in a diet that's low CALORIE but comparitively high in carbs, insulin levels are higher, with uneven peaks and lows.

Protein Power Lifeplan (Drs. Eades, Warner Books, 2000) explains it perfectly in Chapter 2, "The Insulin Connection" pp 21 - 57. You may be able to borrow this book from your library. It is worth reading for helping to understand ... no matter what program you follow. The first part of the chapter covers the physiology of insulin, its role in the body, Insulin Resistance (Syndrome X) and how to reverse this process by restricting carbohydrates. They describe a study where two groups of obese patients were placed on carefully controlled and monitored diets ... both diets were equal in calories and protein, one was higher carb, lower fat. The other was low-carb, high-fat. The low-CARB group lost slightly more weight, and had vastly improved blood fat, blood sugar and insulin levels.

The Eades go on to explain "So, What Causes Weight Loss" Is it carbohydrate restriction or calorie restriction? .... if you reduce carbohydrates, in order to keep the calories the same you've got to replace the carbohydrates with something, so you replace them with fat and protein and see what happens. Whatever happens, you can't say with any surety that it happened because the carbs were restricted any more than you can say it happened because the fat or protein was increased. If you want to eliminate any effect of increased protein or fat, then you've got to keep them the same and ONLY reduce the carb content of the diet .... but then you've decreased the calories. And who can say whether or not the resulting changes come from the carb restriction or from the decreased calories? .... The judgement is that carb restriction works better than calorie restriciton alone.

< snip >

But calorie restriction alone doesn't explain it all. Remember that insulin is the fat-storage hormone ... but that's not insulin's only action here. Not only does insulin store fat in the fat cell, it also prevents the fat that is already in the cell from coming out ... This is important, because it explains the difference in weight loss between a high-carb and a low-carb diet of equal caloric content. A high-carb diet is going to stimulate the release of more insulin than a low-carb diet even when the calories are equal, and so the excess insulin is going to make it more difficult for the fat cells to release their fat content, even with the calorie defecit. This fat cell resistance to higher insulin levels is why we believe that low-carbohydrate diets encourage a more rapid weight loss.If insulin levels are kept low enough, then fat storage pretty much shuts down - it's not going to get into the fat cells without the assistance of insulin. The fat cells will also be able to release their fat stores more readily with lowered insulin levels. Furthermore, with insulin kept low, fats (both dietary sources and from our body's fat stores) can get into the muscle cells more easily to be burned as fuel. **remember what I said in my previous post, when fuel is burned, it releases carbon dioxide, water and other wastes that are easily eliminated from the body**

So, it seems that the "Metabolic Advantage" isn't just about ketones and fat-burning ... as you know, not all low-carb diets lead to ketosis ... but has a lot to do with keeping insulin levels low, thus inhibiting fat storage AND making it easier for fat cells to release their fat content ... :)

Doreen

[doreen T]

Exercise.

It's well-known and documented that increasing exercise is another way to increase calorie-deficit. So, does exercise only affect weight- and fat-loss by burning more calories?

No. Research has shown that exercise also improves the insulin-sensitivity of the cells. Therefore, less insulin is required to do the job, levels of insulin drop and so once again, we have that metabolic advantage of less fat-storage and increased ability of fat cells to release their fat content.

:sunny:

Doreen

[r.mines]

A brilliant explanation, Doreen....as usual! You ought to write a book....

Rachel

[Elihnig]

I don't know if I can explain this any better than Atkins, and other people seem to be helping with it too, but I'll try.

People have done studies where test subjects, who were extremely obese, consumed diets of equal calories composed of different food types.

Example: Subject A ate a 1000 calorie diet of 100 % carbohydrates. Subject B ate a 1000 calorie diet of approximately 100% protein (maybe it was powdered?). Subject C ate a diet of 100% fat. Now this study at the 1000 calorie level is a level where pretty much everyone loses weight, simply because it to low calorie. The A person lost a little weight, maybe 1-2 pounds per week. The B person lost considerably more, maybe 3-4 pounds per week. (I don't have this memorized after all.) The C person lost the most weight like 5-6 pounds per week. The study also pushed the calories of the fat intaking person to 2600 calories of fat, and they still lost weight at a fast rate.

There is mention of this study in both the Woman Doctor's Diet for Women, and the Atkins book.

Take my supper for example (not literally ;) )

I'm having a giant peice of steak for supper, I'm not sure how many calories it has, it covers the dinner plate and has lots of fat all over it. Needless to say I am enjoying it immensely. :D

A big piece of steak like this has a lot of calories. How many, I don't know. I will continue to lose weight on my program no matter how many calories of meat and fat I consume tonight.

The difference is, I wouldn't lose any weight on my program if I had a baked potato with it. It's not the calories that matter, it's what they're made of. This was what Atkins was trying to say in his comparison of Harry Kronberg's before and after diet menus and calorie comparisons. As long as you cut carbohydrates, you need not cut calories. In fact, several people on this forum have pointed out that you need to make sure that you are consuming enough food to keep your body out of starvation mode, where the body thinks it's not getting enough fuel and starts saving your fat.

I hope I helped you to understand what it is that I was talking about.

Elihnig

[alecmcq]

Elihnig
I do understand that people seem to lose weight at different rates depending on what they eat. I am trying to understand how/why.

IslandGirl
I don't doubt that this stuff works. I am doing it! I just want to understand how.

Doreen
Many, many thanks for your explanations. You have obviously spent lots of time helping me here, and I really appreciate it. BTW, I have now bought the Atkins New Diet book (today) and I am reading it avidly. However, I've yet to find any answer to my question.

You said (twice) as the end point
"thus making it easier for fat cells to release their fat content ..."

This is where I have the problem. Now the fat is released, what happens to it? If it is burnt by living/exercise then surely this is again simply calorie deficit, since it will take some movement or process to burn the fat that has been released. If it is not burnt off by living/exercise, then what happens to it?

My theory at this point (I am very willing to change my view) is that we lose weight more through low carb diets by a calorie deficit caused by a metabolic increase caused by the diet. I would love to believe that fat is somehow "washed away" with other body wastes, but I can't see yet how this would happen.

Thanks again.
Cheers
Alec

[r.mines]

I THINK the body attempts to burn the released fat for energy. But in the absense of carbs, the fat is incompletely burned and produces ketones, some of which are used for energy, most of which are eliminated. That's off the top of my head. I think.

Then there's the Whoosh Fairy theory....

Rachel

[Natrushka]

Not sure if this helps.. I got this off the "How Stuff Works" webiste:

How Your Body Breaks Down Fat

When you are not eating, or you are exercising, your body must draw on its internal energy stores of complex carbohydrates, fats and proteins. Your body's prime source of energy is glucose.

The first line of defense in maintaining energy is to break down carbohydrates, or glycogen, into simple glucose molecules -- this process is called glycogenolysis. Next, your body breaks down fats into glycerol and fatty acids in the process of lipolysis. The fatty acids can then be broken down directly to get energy, or can be used to make glucose through a multi-step process called gluconeogenesis. In gluconeogenesis, amino acids can also be used to make glucose.

In the fat cell, other types of lipases work to break down fats into fatty acids and glycerol. These lipases are activated by various hormones, such as glucagon, epinephrine and growth hormone. The resulting glycerol and fatty acids are released into the blood, and travel to the liver through the bloodstream. Once in the liver, the glycerol and fatty acids can be either further broken down or used to make glucose

Doesnt it stand to reason that if I need a set amount of calories for my body to function (say 2300), and I am not ingesting that set amount (I typically eat 1700), the amount remaining (600) must come from somewhere; stored fat. It is burned during the course of my day.

Nat

[orsolag]

:wave: Hi, I just started induction, how much weight did you lose in this phase? I hope I will lose at least 10pd, am I dreaming, I have abot 15pd give or take to lose. see ya orsola

[alecmcq]

Nat said:

"Doesnt it stand to reason that if I need a set amount of calories for my body to function (say 2300), and I am not ingesting that set amount (I typically eat 1700), the amount remaining (600) must come from somewhere; stored fat. It is burned during the course of my day."

That's exactly where I am at currently. We are losing weight and burning fat because of calorie deficit.

However, there are some here (and Atkins does this too) who are claiming that calories don't matter and there are people who lose more weight than they burn in calories. I am trying to understand how.

Rachel
Maybe you have a reasonable answer. The only way I can see of people losing more weight than they burn is by passing some of the "released" fat out of the body unburned/unused. Is this possible in the absence of carbs? Did you get this from an article or book? If so, do you have a reference?
Cheers
Alec

[r.mines]

Originally posted by alecmcq
Rachel
Maybe you have a reasonable answer. The only way I can see of people losing more weight than they burn is by passing some of the "released" fat out of the body unburned/unused. Is this possible in the absence of carbs? Did you get this from an article or book? If so, do you have a reference?

Hi, Alec. I believe it's in Atkins. Now I don't remember (and I don't have time to look right now - gotta go to work) if there's a page reference, or if I just surmised it from something he said. But I'm pretty sure it's in Atkins, possibly in the 'metabolic advantage' section. And yes, ketones leaving the body unburned for energy would happen only in the absence of carbs, according to what I've read.

Rachel

[IslandGirl]

Lowered blood sugar permits a lowered level of insulin hormone which in turn allows an elevated level of glucagon hormone (pancreatic hormones, insulin/glucagon ratio) AND an elevated level of glucagon catalyzes the *release* of stored fatty acids, of which ketones are a breakdown product.

Higher Blood Sugar means High Insulin, Lowered Glucagon, Reduced Ketones (sorry, Dot, but Ketosis isn't about having measurable ketones in the urine, it's about the ratio of Insulin (stores fat) to Glucagon (releases fat), normally. All things being metabolically equal, no spill-over in the urine just means the stuff is, essentially, being fully utilized. Other than that, you've got it ALL covered. Beautifully done! :wave:

[doreen T]

Originally posted by IslandGirl
..... sorry, Do, but Ketosis isn't about having measurable ketones in the urine, it's about the ratio of Insulin (stores fat) to Glucagon (releases fat), normally. Right you are Judi, although I can't see where I mentioned that it does?? Oh well, good point about the release of glucogon in response to lowered insulin levels. We must remember though, that glucagon can be a double-edged sword, since its other role is to stimulate the liver to release stored glycogen (sugar) into the blood when glucose levels are low ... Of course, the likely cause of low blood sugar is too high insulin .... :rolleyes: ... 'tis a fine balancing act.

Doreen

[IslandGirl]

glucagon can be a double-edged sword, since its other role is to stimulate the liver to release stored glycogen (sugar) into the blood when glucose levels are low

Absitively, Do. But then this is where things DO get complicated because, as you probably know :confused: but is not readily put into a simple statement or two (my original point way back
- lowered carb intake should mean lowered glycogen storage (preferential in the liver but the muscles too) so a blunted blood sugar spike
- adrenaline release triggers glucagon/glycogen release (the stress connection)
- caffeine triggers adrenaline (the caffeine connection

A fine dance indeed, but the metabolic advantage is that lowering carb intake blunts ALL these responses and normalizes/lowers blood sugars and thus insulin response and/or levels.

PS: it's really nice to chat about these things again, hope you don't mind?

[doreen T]

Originally posted by IslandGirl
PS: it's really nice to chat about these things again, hope you don't mind? "I love it!", she typed, shooing an amorous cat off the keyboard.
http://www.theunholytrinity.org/cracks_smileys/kao/otn/cat.gif

Do

[essjay]

Another very slow loser here. I just clocked my sixth pound after a month of low carb (staying close to induction levels of carbs) and exercising strenuously 3 times a week. I don't do aspartame and I eat enough and steer clear of things with glycerin and the like. Still I am losing so slowly. Over the past year I've lost the same 10 lbs over and over again. I would say that it takes me about 3 months to lose 10 lbs and then I get so frustrated, it takes me a few days to put it back on when I go off of whatever plan. Then it's back to trying to lose that 10 lbs. I had my thyroid checked and I'm okay but so frustrated. Some days I even feel bigger than when I started. I somehow think that if I could just get past these 10 lbs I might go faster, I don't know why my body needs to hang onto this weight!!!

[orsolag]

:( HI, At least you lost something I feel like I gained weight since I been on atkins induction-thurs will be a week -I will cut down on my protein,cause I do eat it all sday long, I drink one cup of decafe a day,he says thats OK-I know it so depressing isnt it-anyway when you go of atkin try to eat good carbs only for a while cause I know alot of people who gain weight right back when they go off atkins. :thdown: I will try something else next week like protein p or go-diet my frind start when I start on atkins(go-diet) and she lost weight already. You can find go diet on the web just type go-diet.com good luck :D



orsola

[Karen]

I know alot of people who gain weight right back when they go off atkins.

Guess what?

If you are on a "diet" then return to your former way of eating, you gain weight. That's why there are few successful "dieters". If you change your eating habits permanently, guess what?

You don't gain weight back. Wow! What a surprise.

Karen

[alecmcq]

IslandGirl
I still don't get it.

What do you mean by "release" in "...an elevated level of glucagon catalyzes the *release* of stored fatty acids, of which ketones are a breakdown product."

When it is "released", what happens to it? Where does it go? How does it exit the body?
Cheers
Alec

[IslandGirl]

When it is "released", what happens to it? Where does it go? How does it exit the body?

"It" (the stored fat) is broken down into fatty acids which are 'released' into the bloodstream in the form of several varieties of 'ketones' which are used for energy by the cells as an alternative to glucose. Any unused 'energy' would *normally* be stored as fat IF insulin is dominant but since glucagon is dominant, it's not stored but flushed. The excess unused ketones (fat breakdown byproducts and literally unused calories) are respired (via sweat or breath) or flushed from the bloodstream by the kidneys. Hence, keto-breath... etc.

This is a very simplified explanation. Any further detail you would have to look up in a medical textbook or (recommended) Lyle MacDonald's book "The Ketogenic Diet".

[Crowis]

There have been a lot of comments on this thread that are absolutely fantastic, and I think some of you need doctorates (or if you have them then you need them in nutrition :) ).

From what I understand taking carbohydrates out of your diet forces your body to use both eaten fat, and stored fat as its primary source of fuel. The unfortunate thing about turning eaten fat into energy is that it is an incredibly spendy process for your body. So spendy in fact that it basically transforms all the fat you are eating (which is 9 calories per gram typically) down to roughly 5 calories per gram (this process also includes taking some of the fat you are eating to power conversion of stored fat. The process for this has been explained multiple times. . . but the end result is turning 9 fat calories into 5 for every gram you eat(as far as the good Dr. Atkins is concerned). This process only happens with heavy carb restriction. This is metabolic advantage.

Now if I'm eating a fifteen hundred calorie a day diet (because yes, I too believe in calorie reduction-if not jus to speed my weight loss). If a thousand calories of that is fat (which is not difficult on the Atkins diet) then consider this equation. . .


1000 calories of fat per day is roughly 111.1 grams of fat. Quite a bit.

Now take that 111.1 and instead of multiplying it by 9 (the typical calories in a fat gram) which would take us back up to a thousand. Multiply it by 5 (the amount of calories your body will actually see) instead. You get 555.5 calories.

If you take a 1000 and subtract 555.5 calories I will have gained and 444.5 calorie metabolic advantage. Basically I'm eating fifteen hundred calories a day, but my body sees it as 1025.5 calories. Those calories I'm losing aren't going anywhere but being converted to energy instead.

This is why you get greater weight loss. In my opinion its still highly calorie related. . . but oh well.

Mike

[orsolag]

:wave: Hi mike I agree calories is part of low carbing also-I must cut down on fatty beef and eating too much protein in general


orsola

[Crowis]

We got to do what we got to do, right :p

I think that calorie reduction is the standard for most people on the Atkins diet. Even if it is incidental. I recently watched a program on the Discovery channel about how scientists are advising our bodies instinctively "know whats best" so, if I'm not hungry I don't force more caloris down my maw.

GRIN

Mike

[tamarian]

This thread is quite informative as to all the variations and techniques.

Just to point out to new comers reading this and getting confused as to who's right and who's wrong: Do what works for your body.

Some have only a few of lbs and can lose it in a week or two no matter what diet they follow;

Some have huge metabolic advantage and will lose no matter what they eat.

The majority of obese people belong to none of the above groups :(

If you're not among the above groups, chose a low-carb plan you think you can live with and follow it to the T for amonth. If you lose weight comfortable and want to tweak it, by all means, you have more room to experiment than the rest of us :)

Wa'il

[IslandGirl]

....
the Metabolic Advantage is all these things above and more...

A whole lot of shakin' going on! and Wa'il, thanks for the timely reminder that each and every person, regardless of the general theories being applied, has their own metabolism (or as we say over and over, YMMV Your Measurements May Vary) and must best-fit their dietary intake for themselves.

Sure is fun to talk about these things though... a cool puzzle.

[Harley]

Doesnt matter what I do, eat, whatever I lose 1 kilo over 2 weeks or maximum 2 kilos over 2 weeks. And this is on the induction phase. Makes me want to cry. The only reason I am sticking to this diet (Dr Atkins) is because I feel betterwhen I do but the weight loss is pathetic and I am getting fed up and tempted to stop. Any words of wisdom (or sympathy :) ) are sorely needed and most welcomed.

[Elihnig]

I might be wrong, but isn't a kilo 2.2 pounds? That would be an acceptable rate of loss.

If on the other hand I am mistaken...

Some things that may prevent weight loss are medications, hidden carbs, dairy products, nuts, food intolerences, not drinking enough water, not eating enough calories, not exercising, not getting essential fatty acids, sensitivity to that acid found in red meat and eggs, not eating enough fat, and getting into a dietary rut where you eat the same things the same ways with consistancy. I'm sure there is more but this is all that comes to mind right now. Good luck!

Elihnig

[kyfaithly]

This is an interesting thread. I am not counting my calories, so far I am just taking Dr. Atkins' advice of not being afraid of fat (for the 2 week induction period) and I'm enjoying the heck out of this diet. I am afraid of not eating enough, I just am not one bit hungry. Several evenings I've just skipped dinner.

[Elihnig]

Please do not skip meals! Have some protein and 1/2 cup of green veggies before bed at least! If you do not get in enough calories in regular intervals your body will think you are starving and shut down your weightloss. Yes, even if you are not hungry, so eat!

Elihnig

[Harley]

Hello again
I read this after the diary reply.
What can I say?

medications - yes
dairy products - yes
food intolerences - to almost everything
not drinking enough water - major yes (does mint tea count?)
not eating enough calories - mostly yes
not exercising - big major yes
not getting essential fatty acids - possibly
sensitivity to that acid found in red meat and eggs - no idea
not eating enough fat - ????
getting into a dietary rut - definately
plus - ibs
plus - vegetarian at heart, demi-veg by necessity

Oh my G-d I am a complete mess.
Yes you are right 2.2lbs = 1 kilo
I think the main problem for me is that for the second time in my life I do have the willpower but to 'fight' to diet and to lose weight so very slowly is driving me nuts. Husband lost 32 kilos in 5 moths, his mum in 8 months and his brother 20k in 2 months! Also everywhere I read/look on different sites the weight is just falling off people.
Why has the weight fairy forgotton me?
Im whingeing again. Sorry.
Thanx again

[Sh'ra]

Originally posted by Harley
Doesnt matter what I do, eat, whatever I lose 1 kilo over 2 weeks or maximum 2 kilos over 2 weeks. And this is on the induction phase. Makes me want to cry. The only reason I am sticking to this diet (Dr Atkins) is because I feel betterwhen I do but the weight loss is pathetic and I am getting fed up and tempted to stop. Any words of wisdom (or sympathy :) ) are sorely needed and most welcomed.

Don't give up! Just LOOK at what patience has got you! You have lost weight, you're healthier, you haven't gained! :)

I know, it's really hard. Maybe you should tweak your diet a little and make it yours. You've obviously been following Atkins long enough to know that you only lose a certain amount. You probably know what your triggers are by now, and what you can eat and be safe with. Play around with it a little; if you continue to lose 2 kilos every two weeks, you'll be able to eat what you like and still lose weight, and it'll be nearly effortless!

Just wanted to encourage you to keep on plugging along :)
Sh'ra

[Harley]

Ahh Bless.
You are lovely. Thank you for you rkind words and encouragement. And you are so right. I am in the process of tweaking as we 'speak'.
Im also feeling better from all the encouragement I have been geting from people through this site.
I just have to come to terms that I lose weight really slowly and I think that I am (trying to anyway)

Thanks again and good luck to you as well. :D

[Sh'ra]

Thanks, Harley,

Soon as I'm off induction with Atkins, I'm going to "tweak" a little. I definitely want to add back some fruit to my diet - I miss fruit almost as much as I miss chocolate :D That should help with the boredom of what I'm eating.

Sh'ra

[mimami4]

Hello,
I am new to the Atkins diet and I'm getting confused with all these figures :confused:
No matter, I'm am going to keep going and any weight I lose will be fine with me :)
TryAgain, don't feel bad. I am going into my second week of the induction period and so far I have lost 5 lbs. It seems to be slowing down. I may lose another 5lbs, who knows :q: but I'm going to keep on keepin' on for as long as I can. And in the mean time, if I reach my goal than FANTASTIC :exclm:
Good luck to everyone out there trying to reach their weight loss goals and their health goals :exclm:
Maria

[med234]

"It's helpful to hear other people think they're going slowly. I just completed my 2 week induction & lost 6 pounds. I felt really discouraged yesterday. Ran farther that usual, but was in tears most ofthe way. So many people seem to lose so much on induction, it was difficult for me yesterday to feel successful."

What a huge variation there seems to be, but I am mostly discouraged because people are noticing my husband has lost weight, and I haven't yet lost enough to show!
Decided to try butter on everything.

[allerfree]

I'm a slow poke too-- Er a ( poor looser?) grin..

don't say turtle thats a chocolate covered pecan and caramel covered yum yum.

I'm on several meds that slow weight loss including daily prednisone to keep my white blood cells from shutting down my own organs and I have a combination of autoimmune conditions that dont help (a connective tissue disorder, celiac, eosinophilic gastroenteritis and multiple food allergies).

I have however lost 25 lbs in 6 months. Thats almost 5 lbs a month. Dropping a TURKEY THAT SIZED IS A BIG DEAL. I'm getting teased and asked what it is I am up to.

Brother dropping 10 lbs in a week or his friend loosing 25 in three weeks.
Evil grin - care to introduce us in person I ask- funny he declined... I'ts not like I could really wring his neck from my wheelchair.

I'ts not easy goint LC but it is the only thing that dropped my weight at all.

My pain level is down, my migrains have left. If only I could find my collar bones.

Ellen