Calories Do No count on Atkins...Face The Fact : Low-Carb War Zone : Active Low-Carber Forums

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

AtkinsBOY1

Fri, Dec-03-04, 15:32

Thats it im getting really angry when people are saying that u should count calories on the atkins. That just not ture he says in his book that there is no need to count caloires and he has studies to back this up go to atkins.com. Then I said Let me prove ot people that calories dop not count. Since my dad is a little overweight and he is almost done with the atkins I put him on a 4,400 calorie diet wich was based totaly on the atkins of coarse and he still lost weight. I just think that people are stalling because they are not eating enough fat and calories and may be having too much carbs. Trust me I expericed this I was stalling and I too thought it was caloires but what I did Is I decereased my carbs by 5 grams and increased my daily fat by 15 grams and calories but over 500 or more. Then I slighly increased my excerise only about 5 or so mintues. Also People who disagree should read the atkins books and studies even though there is a study that states that calories do count it just simpy not true let me guess another government study. Please many stuff u read out their has censorship and is not true. the government just want u to go back to the food pyramid. Im cerntialy not following it becyase my mom who is a doctor is a neurologist and a diettionist (sry for wrong spelling) Said calories is a BIG FAT LIE. Also if ur still stalling guess what that happens to u on all diets so get used to it. The stalling shouldnt last for more than a couple of weeks or at the most a month. Also if u are still experiencing stalling well then recored everything down in a little journal and make sure ur not having something called hidden carbs. Also some pople do report that having an excess of cream can cause weight loss stall but that's not to all common. If you are still stalling then ask ur self are your jeans fititng u better if u are then ur losing inches first not pounds. And If ur still stalling then ask ur self are u overweight? Atkins always said that his diet will only get u down to ur normal healthy weight.

Nancy LC

Fri, Dec-03-04, 15:39

AtkinsBOY1

Fri, Dec-03-04, 15:46

AtkinsBOY1

Fri, Dec-03-04, 15:49

Deep breath!

Hun, if you don't need to count calories, don't count them! Men seem to get away with it more than women do. I'm very jealous of your metabolisms.

However, it isn't true for me and lots of other people. For whatever reason, we're older, we're female, we were born with pokey metabolisms, we just don't lose on Atkins unless we restrict the calories. I maintain on about 1800 calories and gain eating more than that.

Celebrate the fact you're not one of us and enjoy something calorific for me. I'll try not to be too envious. Yea I just asked my mom she said for Some women not all need to count calories if u have a slow metoblism. I have many tips for u to increase ur metoblism. DO a lot of excersie. I mean like 1 hour a day. Remeber do baby steps like one week u can try to do 10 miutes and every wekk work ur way up to an hour. Also I believe there is some safe metobloism pills that can increase ur metoblism a sfae way do a goolge search cause 1,800 calories is nothing I have that for a meal. Sorry If I upset u. If u need help Im always here

Lisa N

Fri, Dec-03-04, 16:06

Atkinsboy, there's no need to get angry. Celebrate the fact that you are young, male and fairly active allowing you to be in the position of not having to count calories.
However, don't get mad at the 45 yo menopausal sedentary female with a wrecked metabolism from years of starvation dieting (or yo-yoing) if she finds that she needs to count calories in order to lose.
We are all different in that respect; some never need to count calories and some find they do, especially as they get closer to goal weight.
When it comes down to it, Dr. Atkins never said calories don't count. What he did say was that the majority of people would find that it's not necessary to count calories to lose weight on the Atkins plan and then followed it with the caveat that the metabolic advantage of low carb was not be used as a license to make a pig of yourself and eat everything low carb in sight. "Eat until satisfied, not stuffed." was his motto.
I have read many of the studies that you refer to and you might want to go back and review them again. In most cases, the caloric difference between groups was 600 or less and all groups were below 2,000 calories a day intake in the studies. Granted, being able to lose equal or more weight on 300-600 calories per day more than on a low fat diet is certainly a bonus, but it's a far cry from what you're describing, you lucky boy, you. ;) I don't know of any studies that showed a person can consume 4,000 calories a day as a rule and lose weight on low carb.

Nancy LC

Fri, Dec-03-04, 16:45

Well, doing lots of exercise would be wonderful if I had an hour a day to devote to it and didn't have the assortment of injuries and disabilities that keep me from doing that. But even an hour of very virgorous exercise burns about 200-400 calories. Unfortunately it'd probably stimulate my appetite even more and I might end up consuming more calories than I burned.

Its ok. I truly don't mind having to watch the calories a bit. It isn't like I have to starve myself. I don't get to eat ALL the wonderful low carb goodies I'd like to, but I feel just fine limiting my intake to around 1400 calories a day or so.

And yes, my carb count stays pretty low. Probably 20-25 as a rule.

As far as what Atkins said about calories, I seem to recall he acknowledged there were people who were metabolically resistant and he designed the fat fast (1200 calories) for them. He also said things about not over-eating, but for the most part he said counting calories isn't necessary for most people.

potatofree

Fri, Dec-03-04, 17:11

AtkinsBOY1

Fri, Dec-03-04, 17:37

AtkinsBOY1

Fri, Dec-03-04, 17:41

I'm having trouble understanding you a little, maybe a language barrier of sorts, but there are many people who can only lose if they keep an eye on calories. I'd be interested to know how you went about putting your father on a set number of calories? How wonderful that your parents are willing to be your guinea pigs, but I'm afraid I'd need a lot more proof than that before I agreed that calories don't matter.
DO u want to see pictures or something. I mean my dad did do the atkins but i just get fed up when people say calories count. I mean yes they do count for a small people doing lc but for most at least 95 percent dont have too. Just like people with high ldl on the atkins zI bet u if they fraconate it it would come back perfect. The reason why my english may seem bad is becuase i broke two of my fingures while playing basketball. I also broke me ankle but i still try to find a way to do excerise.

potatofree

Fri, Dec-03-04, 17:55

AtkinsBOY1

Fri, Dec-03-04, 18:56

I believe you that he lost on what you say he did. I mean it's simply not proof that it would hold true for a larger number of people. If you're basing your claim that 95% of people don't have to worry about calories just on your own experience and not a scientific sampling of a cross-section of the population, it has no validity. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I'm afraid it's simply not true, no matter how badly you want it to be... for whatever reason.

Hope you heal quickly, and best of luck. :) I mean ur right but lets face it atkins said him self many people on

the atkins dont have to count calories i have meet at least 50 frieds in my life who gobble down butter everyday and lose weight. Re-read the atkins book and u will find out that most people dont have to count calories but u are right that there are some poeple who have to count calories in order to lose weight.

AtkinsBOY1

Fri, Dec-03-04, 18:58

I believe you that he lost on what you say he did. I mean it's simply not proof that it would hold true for a larger number of people. If you're basing your claim that 95% of people don't have to worry about calories just on your own experience and not a scientific sampling of a cross-section of the population, it has no validity. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I'm afraid it's simply not true, no matter how badly you want it to be... for whatever reason.

Hope you heal quickly, and best of luck. :) See look at what my good old frined lisa said "What he did say was that the majority of people would find that it's not necessary to count calories to lose weight on the Atkins plan and then followed it with the caveat that the metabolic advantage of low carb was not be used as a license to make a pig of yourself and eat everything low carb in sight. "Eat until satisfied, not stuffed." was his motto."

Lisa N

Fri, Dec-03-04, 19:25

i just get fed up when people say calories count. I mean yes they do count for a small people doing lc but for most at least 95 percent dont have too.

Atkinsboy, you might find some of these links to the Atkins website on the subject interesting reading:

http://atkins.com/helpatkins/newfaq/answers/IMUsedToCountingCaloriesHowManyAmIAllowed.html
http://atkins.com/Archive/2004/6/29-387644.html (specifically item #8)
http://atkins.com/helpatkins/newfaq/answers/IsItTrueThatAtkinsWorksSimplyBecauseItSALow.html
http://atkins.com/helpatkins/newfaq/answers/CouldEatingAdvantageBarsBeImpedingMyWeight.html

I think your 95% figure is likely high and a realistic figure might be more in the range of 50% at most depending on the age group and gender you are speaking of. Generally, those who are under 30, male or both are less likely to need to watch calories to lose on low carb (and I base this on observations of hundreds of "help, I'm stalled!" posts). Same thing goes for those who have never dieted prior to going on low carb. Those who are female, older, less active, have hormone issues (hypothyroid, menopause/perimenopause, etc...), have a history of starvation or yo-yo dieting or are for some reason unable to excercise much seem to need to count both carbs and calories to successfully reach goal.
In the case of you and your dad, you are both male and because of that have considerably higher muscle mass than the average female. Higher muscle mass = higher metabolism. Personally, anything over 1,800 calories (keeping my carb intake constant at 30 grams per day) and I either don't lose or start to gain, but I'm female, 43 (perimenopausal) and not terribly active with a lifetime history of low calorie and yo-yo dieting. OTOH, on a low fat/high carb diet, I would start to gain if I got much over 1,400 calories (the higher the carbs, the less calories I would start to gain on), so this is definitely better for me when it comes to calories.
As I said before, Dr. Atkins himself never said calories don't matter at all; only that they matter less on low carb than they do on most high carb plans and while Dr. Atkins didn't encourage counting calories, he didn't say it was a low carb crime to do so, either. :idea:

Nancy LC

Fri, Dec-03-04, 19:29

Don't worry, I'm not in a wheel chair or anything but my knees are very ouchy and I've got bursitis in both hips. Dang ellipctical trainer!

mrfreddy

Sat, Dec-04-04, 10:31

From my own experience I am convinced that I need to watch calories if I want to lose that last 15 or so pounds. I have been stuck at the same weight for over 2 years now, but I'm not complaining, I like eating this way, and I am able to at least maintain my weight at about 35 pounds less than my pre-low-carb days.

It's interesting to me as well that Dr. A. himself was my height and my weight most of the time (about 195)...

It seems that with low carb, you have a choice:

eat all you want, and be happy with wherever your weight settles,

or,

if you really want to get that slim hard body, you gotta watch the calories (or be very young or very active....)

dina1957

Sat, Dec-04-04, 14:30

Don't worry, I'm not in a wheel chair or anything but my knees are very ouchy and I've got bursitis in both hips. Dang ellipctical trainer!NancyLC:
I wouldn't blame elliptical trainer for knees and hips pain. It's the best cardio machine ever if you need a good workout with almost no impact. I own one and do everyday almost an hour, no problem whatsoever, and I'm 47. You probably had some pre-existing condition.
http://exercise.about.com/cs/exercisegear/a/treadelliptical.htm (http://exercise.about.com/cs/exercisegear/a/treadelliptical.htm)
D.

carrottop

Sat, Dec-04-04, 14:37

I had exactly the same problem as Nancy with the ellipitcal trainer. Most people over 40 have some sort of preexisting condition. :lol: Maybe you are just lucky. Women's knees, for structural reasons have to do with the line from the pelvis to the knees, are also more vulnerable to damage.

VickiP

Tue, Mar-15-05, 14:52

Nancy LC

Tue, Mar-15-05, 14:56

Actually, I'm suspecting my hip pain might have been due to my hypothyroid condition. We'll see! Hopefully within a few months it will all be better.

ADDYNOVA

Tue, Mar-15-05, 15:02

I believe in the Atkins' approach. However, I still think you need to restrict calories and increase exercise to lose the weight. Around 3,000 calories the amount of calories needed to gain a pound or the amount of calories needed to be restricted in your diet to lose a pound. This fact changed my life forever.

STRONGULUS

Tue, Mar-15-05, 15:36

I do believe that eating a few more calories will help you lose weight faster in the long run because it won't slow your metabolism down as much. But as for them not mattering at all, I think that could be stretching it a bit. So are you saying that I could eat 5,000 calories a day as long as I keep carbs under 20 grams? Doesn't seem logical.

Lisa N

Tue, Mar-15-05, 16:06

That is ridiculous, of course calories count. I don't think that your one 'study' (if it is the truth) is going to negate the other zillions of studies that show that calories do count. Show me an actual, published, real study that shows calories don't count.

Vicki, there are a least a couple of studies that compared low fat/high carb to low carb/high fat and they both demonstrated greater weight loss among the low carb participants while consuming 300-600 more calories per day. This by no means shows that calories don't matter at all, but it does demonstrate that in practice some can consume more calories while following a low carb program than they did following a low fat/high carb program and still lose an equal or greater amount of weight.

http://atkins.com/Archive/2004/8/27-839151.html (at the end of the article, links to the studies referenced are provided).

That being said, Dr. Atkins also made it clear that the metabolic advantage of low carb was not to be used as a license to gorge on low carb foods. The 'eat until satisfied, but not stuffed' principle applies so being able to eat a higher level of calories and still lose weight shouldn't be translated to "I can pig out and lose weight". It just doesn't work that way for most people. :idea:

quietone

Wed, Mar-16-05, 08:07

Of course, we don't know what AtkinsBoys father and mother ate before he put them on Atkins, now do we? And how do we know your calorie computations are correct?

And of course, there are other low carb plans that are not as strict as Atkins that claim the same benefits he does, so how does that work?

Hmmm. I can't honestly say that I have never tried upping my calorie intake while on Atkins, because when I am on it, I don't feel the need to eat more.

If I could exercise 1-2 hours a day, then I probably wouldn't have needed to be on any diet.

Rosebud1

Wed, Mar-16-05, 08:26

:help:I like the idea that calories don't count although I am female and 55 and this is probably wishful thinking that it will work for me also. How many carbs did your parents stay on daily and still lose weight? Did they subtract fibers from their count? Did they eat any sugar alcohol? I am not overweight - 5'8 and 139 pounds but would like to get down to my old weight of 135. I need to write down everything I eat to make sure I am doing it according to what you think will work. I am an avid exerciser like you said is necessary. I am willing to give it a shot before I go back on the meat/egg fast.Thanks so much in advance.

sugarjunky

Wed, Mar-16-05, 10:15

I watch my calorie intake, but I don't count them really. I know I've consistantly lost measurements, and continue to do so. I've been doing Atkins for 6 months now. My loss has been slow but consistant. I also exercise.

VickiP

Wed, Mar-16-05, 11:46

Vicki, there are a least a couple of studies that compared low fat/high carb to low carb/high fat and they both demonstrated greater weight loss among the low carb participants while consuming 300-600 more calories per day. This by no means shows that calories don't matter at all, but it does demonstrate that in practice some can consume more calories while following a low carb program than they did following a low fat/high carb program and still lose an equal or greater amount of weight.

Lisa, I'm not saying that it is only about calories in and calories out. I do believe that eating certain types of food will allow you to be able to consume more calories and not gain as much weight... For example, I am insulin resistant. If I were to eat 500 kcal a day of all carbs, then I would probably be the same weight if I were to eat 2000 kcal of a good carb/protein ratio... This does not mean that calories 'don't count'. It just means that the amount of calories I can have in order to not gain weight is different depending on what foods I eat. If I were to eat 3000 kcal per day eating a good carb/protein ratio, then I would surely gain.

However in 'normal' people (not insulin resistant)... the amount of carbs, proteins, fats, etc. would not be nearly as big of a factor in the total calories per day.

kyrasdad

Wed, Mar-16-05, 12:05

Physics tell me that calories count. They just count a little differently. Eat 10,000 calories of low carb food a day and you'll still get fat. Eat 3,000 a day and if you burn 2,500 and you'll still get fat.

It's an inescapable fact that calories count.

tie_guy

Wed, Mar-16-05, 15:22

cygirl

Wed, Mar-16-05, 15:49

If I could exercise 1-2 hours a day, then I probably wouldn't have needed to be on any diet.[/QUOTE]

oh do I second that.!!

Lisa N

Wed, Mar-16-05, 15:54

On a side note I find that if I eat too much on this diet then I sometimes get a little diarrhea. I just wonder if the body really has to digest every single calorie that you take in or if it is possible that it might expel the calories in other ways.

Yup. While energy cannot be created or destroyed (critics of low carb always like to quote that), it can be wasted or utilized inefficiently. :idea:
Take ketones for example. When low carbing, the body uses them for energy. What a lot of people don't realize is that once fat is catabolized to ketone bodies, it can't be converted back and stored as fat again, so it either needs to be used for energy or excreted (wasted) since the body has no way to store them for later use (that's the job of fat stores which ketones can't be converted back to again). If you don't happen to need them for energy at that particular time, you flush the excess down the toilet. This is basically what is being measured when someone tests their urine for ketones; how much is being 'wasted' through the urine. The body also disposes of excess ketones through breathing, sweat and fecal matter.
This may bother the squeemish, but fecal matter can be used for fuel; it burns which means that it contains energy that can be liberated. This is energy that your body did not extract from the food that came in. :idea:

Dodger

Wed, Mar-16-05, 19:06

Take ketones for example. When low carbing, the body uses them for energy. What a lot of people don't realize is that once fat is catabolized to ketone bodies, it can't be converted back and stored as fat again, so it either needs to be used for energy or excreted (wasted) since the body has no way to store them for later use (that's the job of fat stores which ketones can't be converted back to again). If you don't happen to need them for energy at that particular time, you flush the excess down the toilet. This is basically what is being measured when someone tests their urine for ketones; how much is being 'wasted' through the urine.
Lisa,

Reading your post reminded me of a Lyle McDonald explanation of fuel buring in the body. He said

By the third day of ketosis, all of the non-protein fuel is derived from the oxidation of FFA and ketones. As ketosis develops, most tissues which can use ketones for fuel will stop using them to a significant degree by the third week. This decrease in ketone utilization occurs due to a down regulation of the enzymes responsible for ketone use and occurs in all tissues except the brain. After three weeks, most tissues will meet their energy requirements almost exclusively through the breakdown of FFA. This is thought to be an adaptation to ensure adequate ketone levels for the brain.
I take this to mean that after three weeks, low-carbers are not using ketones as much and are using regular fatty acids for energy.

rumford

Thu, Mar-17-05, 16:49

What was contained in the 4,400 calorie diet?

tagcaver

Thu, Mar-17-05, 18:32

Anyway, the physics of the situation are that calories are a measure of energy, pounds are a measure of weight and comparing the two in some ways is like comparing apples to oranges. Some people like to quote that one pound equals so many calories. I am sure that this number is just a rough estimate and is making a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true.

This may be true in a basic sense, but the energy is stored in the bonds between the atoms in chemical compounds. Therefore any excess energy that the body stores will be in the form of chemical compounds, which do have mass. And while it is true that some of the matter eaten will not be used at all by the body (expelled in some form) and some metabolic byproducts will also be expelled, it really boils down to the fact that excess calories being consumed (in the form of bond energy in the matter eaten) will be stored by the body (also as bond energy in lipid, protein, or glycogen molecules, etc.), resulting in excess weight. If this were not so, people would not become overweight.

drina39

Thu, Mar-17-05, 18:47

Lets face it...everybody is very different. I am over 40, but exercise over two hours a day...AND I NEED TO COUNT CALORIES AS WELL !

There is no sure fire way of lcing that works for everyone. Many of us ( die hard exercisers or not) need to count calories in order to lose while lcing. Its wonderful that some others may not ( and I am a little jealous at that fact ) but its a fact.......Some of us NEED to count calories....sedentary....or not..it doesnt matter much of the time :)

JennLynnRN

Thu, Mar-17-05, 20:28

This actually always bothered me. Calories DO NOT weigh anything. Calories are not a measure of weight or mass, they are a measure of energy.

Ummmm....I am not exactly sure what your point was in that huge post....in fact, I can't even tell if you are in favour of or against counting calories! However, no one has ever said that calories WEIGH anything! What people consistently post, is that it takes 3500 calories to gain one pound...NOT that 3500 calories WEIGH one pound! I think its fair to say that people on this forum know enough that no one actually believes calories weigh anything. I mean, come on! Give us a little credit here!

tie_guy

Fri, Mar-18-05, 14:05

I am sorry JennyLynnRN if you thought my observation that calories don't weigh anything was so obvious as to be offensive. This is the war zone though, so I thought we were free to rant without worrying about hurting other people's feelings.

And maybe I am completely off base here. Maybe I wasn't giving people enough credit. But some people sound, to me at least, like they think that it is a fundamental law of physics that if you eat 3500 extra calories, and do not do 3500 calories worth extra work then you WILL gain 1 pound. I don't think that is always true. If you take in 1/32 of a slug in mass more than you expell then it would be against a fundamental law of physics not to gain one more pound.

Anyway, I am just saying that I think that 3500 calories per pound thing is probably a rough estimate. And that there are plenty of ways that the human body can waste calories. You can get gas, you can urinate out ketones, you can increase your matabolism so that you waste more calories just sitting there.

I am just saying that I don't think it would be against the laws of physics if someone on Atkins could loose weight while taking in more calories than someone on a low fat diet (and I believe that there has been at least one study to suggest that.) And I also think that it is not against the law of physics to think that most people can do Atkins without counting calories and still loose weight. People might argue if EVERYONE can do Atkins without counting calories (certianly I would think people with eating disorders probably can't) but I think most people can do Atkins without counting calories.

Anyway, that is just what I think. And I am sorry if you feel I was talking down to you.

Crat0s

Mon, Mar-21-05, 06:18

I can assure the world. They most definitely do NOT. I don't even try to count them because I know this is working. People are too blindly devoted to false establishments.

DrippinBld

Tue, Apr-12-05, 10:40

Lisa N

Tue, Apr-12-05, 10:54

Just an observation here....

The majority of those responding in this thread that calories don't count on low carb are guys and in general, men have an easier time losing weight than women (higher lean body mass = higher BMR).
Just something to think about, guys. ;)

Dawna

Tue, Apr-12-05, 11:15

Am I the only one who wonders what two broken fingers and a broken foot from a sport injury have to do with bad English? I'm thinking,.....troll.

KryssiMc

Tue, Apr-12-05, 12:26

I can assure the world. They most definitely do NOT. I don't even try to count them because I know this is working. People are too blindly devoted to false establishments.

You can't possibly assure the world, because you are not the world. Not one of us can speak for someone else and their bodily functions. And as for following blindly...I have met soooo many extremely well-informed people in this forum. And it is true, a lot of women have to watch their calories. We have so many more things to factor in and that's a fact....not blind faith.

ItsTheWooo

Tue, Apr-12-05, 16:44

I just eat when I'm hungry like people have done since the dawn of time. I Just don't eat the wrong things. Unless the individual has a seriously impaired metabolism (I would advise attempting to repair it by consuming adequate calories.), wants to shed excess weight very quickly (not recommended) or is a genetic freak (no offence intended) they should not have to restrict calories in order to lose weight.

LOL
Must be nice to have the metabolism of a 6'3 220 pound guy :D

FACT: There is no way to get your body to burn it's own fat for energy without creating a need for energy, first (i.e. not eating enough calories from diet). LC is nice because it keeps your metabolic hormones nice and biased toward catabolism, therefore you don't really get hunger pains when you try to lose weight. If your diet is limited enough, and your metabolism high enough, you will probably wind up not ABLE to consciously eat enough to maintain weight in fact since your interest in food will diminish without the excess appetite stimulation from sugars and starches and prepared foods. Combined with your body having such an easy time burning fat now that sugar and insulin are not being spiked with carbohydrate food that it has no problem going after it's own fat for energy... it may seem as if these "calorie" things and their supposed importance are just some myth made up by the diet industry.

To all the young men here who have metabolisms that are so high, enjoy it. I can assure you as a 107 pound 5'5 sedentary female if I were to ignore calories and just eat as much as I wanted of low carb food, I would most definitely gain weight. It would be great to be able to sit with a can of salted mac nuts and not have to worry, but I know better from experience. I know when I don't eat that much, I lose fast. I know when I eat more, I maintain. I mean there are other stuff to consider but generally speaking if you eat more food you will maintain or gain weight, if you eat less food you will lose weight. It's not magic, it's just science.

ItsTheWooo

Tue, Apr-12-05, 16:51

Lisa, I'm not saying that it is only about calories in and calories out. I do believe that eating certain types of food will allow you to be able to consume more calories and not gain as much weight... For example, I am insulin resistant. If I were to eat 500 kcal a day of all carbs, then I would probably be the same weight if I were to eat 2000 kcal of a good carb/protein ratio... This does not mean that calories 'don't count'. It just means that the amount of calories I can have in order to not gain weight is different depending on what foods I eat. If I were to eat 3000 kcal per day eating a good carb/protein ratio, then I would surely gain.

However in 'normal' people (not insulin resistant)... the amount of carbs, proteins, fats, etc. would not be nearly as big of a factor in the total calories per day.
Excellent point Vicki...
Your degree of insulin resistance will also effect how much of a metabolic advantage you get from low carb.

Also, if you ate a really unhealthy diet before (think soda and chips and cake) you can find that on LC eating more whole, healthy foods that you can eat more calories and lose weight for reasons unrelated to carbs/sugar. The body needs other stuff besides caloric energy to run, it also needs vitamins and minerals and other nutritional factors. If you start giving it those things to it by eating healthy, you'll feel better. The "feel better" factor is a product of your body RUNING better, which takes more ENERGY, thus you will find yourself using more energy vs storing it as fat, thus you can eat more and be a smaller weight on a healthy diet ;).

ItsTheWooo

Tue, Apr-12-05, 17:08

This actually always bothered me. Calories DO NOT weigh anything. Calories are not a measure of weight or mass, they are a measure of energy. In particular a calorie (or more exactly a kilo-calorie wich is what they put on the food label) is 1000 times the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree celsius. Remember that mass and energy can neither be created or destroyed (you can convert mass to energy but only in a star or a nuclear reactor -- and since our bodies aren't likely to cause a nuclear explosion I think it is safe to say that we do not directly convert mass to energy as in e=mc^2.)

So when looking at your weight, it is not a conservation of energy problem, it is a conservation of mass problem! If you let out more mass (either by breathing out water and co2, sweating, or of course going to the bathroom) than you take in (by breathing in o2, eating or drinking) then you will loose mass (and therefore weight.)

Yes the theory goes that if your body can't burn the food that it takes in into enough energy then it will start burning fat. And in the process of burning fat it will expel more mass than you are taking in. But of course the human body is very complicated and it probably isn't that simple.

Anyway, the physics of the situation are that calories are a measure of energy, pounds are a measure of weight and comparing the two in some ways is like comparing apples to oranges. Some people like to quote that one pound equals so many calories. I am sure that this number is just a rough estimate and is making a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true.

On a side note I find that if I eat too much on this diet then I sometimes get a little diarrhea. I just wonder if the body really has to digest every single calorie that you take in or if it is possible that it might expel the calories in other ways. Also I too find that if I eat too little I can stall.

Also, of course Atkins would be careful to tell you not to go too nuts on low carb foods. This diet is being done by millions. Some of these people may have eating disorders. There may be those that would have trouble with a diet in which you can literally eat as much as you want. For those of us that don't have an eating disorder, then I am pretty sure we can eat until we are pretty full and still, in the long run, loose weight.

1 pound has no set amount of calories, because we don't know what it's made of. It depends how energy dense the substance in question is.

When people say "3500 cals = 1 pound" what they are meaning to say is that 1 pound of FAT, pure fat, has 3500 calories. People often make the mistake of then assuming that not eating exactly 3500 calories is what it takes to therefore lose a pound of fat from your body, when this might not be true at all. We know it will take a MINIMUM of 3500 calories, since that's how much fat you're trying to lose (the energy must be released and drawn upon so a demand for at least 3500 calories of energy must somehow be created). But, the processes to burn the fat itself might create an additional need for energy that is unaccounted for, thus it might take (in reality) 4000 calories to burn a pound of fat. It might take 4500. Or, it might take an amount that VARIES depending on diet, lifestyle, hormones, and a million other factors. The "net energy" your body can get from a pound of body fat might be a good deal lower than 3500 calories, and the amount of calories needed to "burn it off" might actually be a good deal higher.

This is why strict, anal calorie counting is flawed. Our bodies are dynamic; they interact with and respond to numerous environmental factors. These are the components of "diet and lifestyle". These D&L factors affect how much energy we need. If you calculate your metabolism eating 2000 calories (keeping all factors as controlled as possible) at 2300 calories... then if you slash those calories down to 500, you are NOT going to be "burning" 1800 calories of fat all of a sudden. Number one, your metabolism will decrease significantly for numerous reasons (lack of TEF - thermic effect of food, body conserving energy due to starvation, anabolism (energy hungry process) slowing down etc). Not only that, but the body will begin to catabolize a higher percentage of your muscle protein for the glucose it needs (body needs needs needs sugar), since you are supplying so little gluconeogenic food (carbohydrate and protein) from diet.

So yea, it's not as simple as "just subtract 50 calories from halving your bowl of special K; that's how much closer you are to losing a pound".
*BUT*
Keeping track of calories is STILL a very good idea. Just because it's impossible to calculate 100% weight loss to the exact calorie, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to use ANY method of keeping track of net energy! For all its flaws, calorie counting is STILL the most accurate way to externally control how much body fat you make your body burn. It is very, very useful to trigger weight loss. I can gaurentee you that on average someone who counts calories to lose weight is going to have an easier time creating an energy deficit and triggering body fat catabolism than someone who just eats whatever they want.

dane

Wed, Apr-13-05, 01:13

When people say "3500 cals = 1 pound" what they are meaning to say is that 1 pound of FAT, pure fat, has 3500 calories. People often make the mistake of then assuming that not eating exactly 3500 calories is what it takes to therefore lose a pound of fat from your body, when this might not be true at all. We know it will take a MINIMUM of 3500 calories, since that's how much fat you're trying to lose (the energy must be released and drawn upon so a demand for at least 3500 calories of energy must somehow be created). But, the processes to burn the fat itself might create an additional need for energy that is unaccounted for, thus it might take (in reality) 4000 calories to burn a pound of fat. It might take 4500. Or, it might take an amount that VARIES depending on diet, lifestyle, hormones, and a million other factors. The "net energy" your body can get from a pound of body fat might be a good deal lower than 3500 calories, and the amount of calories needed to "burn it off" might actually be a good deal higher.
Woo, this is one of the most sensible things I've read here in a long time. Boy, I'm glad you're back. I may not always agree with what you write, but it's always interesting! :)

ChicknLady

Wed, Apr-13-05, 01:41

I believe that there is alot more to the body's metabolism than simply "calories in, calories out". "Cut out a pop a day and in so many weeks you'll lose a pound". I've found that there is a broad range of calories that I can eat and neither gain nor lose weight, maybe in the range of 1800 to even 3000 calories. To gain weight for me requires some serious noshing, and to lose weight requires some serious caloric restriction, even on LC. There has to be alot more to some people's metabolism than simple thermodynamics.

DrippinBld

Wed, Apr-13-05, 13:49

LOL
Must be nice to have the metabolism of a 6'3 220 pound guy :D

My metabolism sucks. I was always an incredibly fat kid and since I lost most of the excess weight I have always had to watch what I've eaten very carefully to maintain a reasonable weight. Until I found this way of eating that is. There are plenty of 5ft-nothing ladies who can eat more than me and get away with it.

But I know what you're saying - I have to conceed women generally have a much harder time losing weight. Though you don't see many fat (none in fact) Mesai or Eskimo women who eat still their traditional diets. They don't want for food either. They eat their fill. Although their bodies haven't been ravaged by years of junk food. Nevertheless, I believe for most people if they follow a healthy diet (you have a fair idea of what I mean by healthy diet I'm sure) and eat until they are satiated (not stuffed) they will eventually reach their optimum weight. There's a definite expectation of a quick fix among us westerners.

DrippinBld

Wed, Apr-13-05, 14:08

To all the young men here who have metabolisms that are so high, enjoy it. I can assure you as a 107 pound 5'5 sedentary female if I were to ignore calories and just eat as much as I wanted of low carb food, I would most definitely gain weight

If you ate frankenfoods and insane amounts of relatively high sugar veggies such as carrots on top of a lot of fat, then you would probably gain. But if you were to eat as much grass-feed fatty meat as you wanted and nothing else I think you'd find it impossible to gain. People who eat like this just don't get fat. I've stuffed myself for a week to see what would happen with all the fatty meat , eggs and even cheese (which definitely stalls me) I could for a week and I lost weight. If I eat 2500 calories of high-carb crap I will slowly gain.

Our bodies are highly complex systems. They are not steam engines. If you put in crap it was never designed to process you have no idea how it will react. Primitive people with hard bodies and who do not suffer the diseases of civilisation (cancer, diabetes, etc) do not count calories and a hell of a lot of 'em do nothing but mild exercise. I was watching a documetary about tribes in Papau New Guinea who ate as their ancestors did. They spent most of their time sitting in the sun or messing around with each other (tut! Tut! Dirty mind) in the water. I've never seen such physiques. These people wouldn't know a calorie from a dung beetle. What do you think happens when they get hold of sugar and white flour? The same thing that happens to our fat asses. :D

I think 1 of the best things about healthy low-carbing is that it can free you from the hassle and stress of counting the calorific value of everything that goes into your body. Establishing a healthy relationship should not involve counting of calories, if at all possible, in my opinion. I'm not attacking anyone and people are free to choose of course.

DrippinBld

Wed, Apr-13-05, 14:21

Maybe a modern diet can impair 1's metabolism permanently. Now there's a sucky thought. :(

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Apr-13-05, 14:21

My metabolism sucks. I was always an incredibly fat kid and since I lost most of the excess weight I have always had to watch what I've eaten very carefully to maintain a reasonable weight. Until I found this way of eating that is. There are plenty of 5ft-nothing ladies who can eat more than me and get away with it.

Observing the way others eat is a really poor way to estimate metabolism. Lots of people - women especially (since disordered eating is more common in women) - have strange eating habits and will eat a lot (or nothing at all), but later eat MUUUCH differently. I know when I was fat, I would quite often pretend not to be hungry just to avoid the embarrassment of eating in front of others. At home though I was like a vacuum. Lots of tiny women tend to indulge out with people but later make up for it by eating less (I know I do this quite often now).

People's eating habits aside, people also tend to have a poor ability to judge their own as well as other's caloric intakes. Some people tend to eat LESS FREQUENTLY, but when they do eat they eat a LOT just by nature (without trying). If you tend toward the opposite pattern, it may seem like that person eats way more than you. This is just one example of how people can get the wrong impression of how low/high their consumption rate is.

Either way the point I'm trying to make is I think it is VERY unlikely that you as a tall, larger man has a metabolism that is objectively anywhere NEAR as slow as any woman who wasn't a competitive athlete :)... nevermind a tiny one. Differences in metabolism between individuals is simply not great enough to facilitate that sort of difference. Compared to another large man your metabolism might not be as fast... but compared to a small woman, it will be.

Basically I'm saying there are limits to how much the body can conserve (meaning your metabolism is still probably much faster than any womans)., and also perception is everything. I'm sure "a small amount of food" to you would be a large amount of food to me, and a small amount of food to me would be a grazing snack to you. Just to give you an idea of what I consider a "small meal"
-half a cup skim milk (40 calories)
-half a slice of low calorie bread (25 calories)
-half a tablespoon of PB (50 calories)
-A quarter of a protein bar (60ish calories)
Total cals: just under 200

To you that's probably a snack so unnoteworthy you wouldn't even consider it a meal... the way I would probably feel about a small piece of fruit (say, a quarter of an apple) with 3 or 4 walnut halves. Grazing snacks.

But I know what you're saying - I have to concede women generally have a much harder time losing weight. Though you don't see many fat (none in fact) Mesai or Eskimo women who eat still their traditional diets. They don't want for food either. They eat their fill.
Although their bodies haven't been ravaged by years of junk food. Nevertheless, I believe for most people if they follow a healthy diet (you have a fair idea of what I mean by healthy diet I'm sure) and eat until they are satiated (not stuffed) they will eventually reach their optimum weight. There's a definite expectation of a quick fix among us westerners.

I would agree with this...
Except that "healthy diet" alone often isn't enough. If food is very plentiful AND very flavorful, and lifestyle sedentary, it's still easy to just eat too much cause food tastes good and is there.
Traditional diets don't have the culinary delights we do here in the west... everything here is intensely flavored and DESIGNED to encourage food addiction, so as to encourage repeat customers. Conversely, traditional foods are much more simply flavored and so habitual over eating (eating passed hunger) is not as likely.
If you eat a handful of raw, rubbery, unsalted almonds... you likely can stop yourself.
If you eat a handful of salted, crunchy, oil roasted almonds... you like will find yourself wanting to eat more just because the textures, salts, and oils stimulated your appetite.

So while I do believe that the healthfulness of diet will result in a reasonably normal weight... habitual/casual over eating of intensely flavorful food can also promote weight gain that you wouldn't see if the diet was more "simple".

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Apr-13-05, 14:37

If you ate frankenfoods and insane amounts of relatively high sugar veggies such as carrots on top of a lot of fat, then you would probably gain. But if you were to eat as much grass-feed fatty meat as you wanted and nothing else I think you'd find it impossible to gain. People who eat like this just don't get fat. I've stuffed myself for a week to see what would happen with all the fatty meat , eggs and even cheese (which definitely stalls me) I could for a week and I lost weight. If I eat 2500 calories of high-carb crap I will slowly gain.

Please correct me if I am assuming incorrectly, but it sounds like you're using your perception of satiety when eating the all-meat diet as a guide to your TRUE calorie count.

You know when I was in deep ketosis and eating not more than a couple eggs, and celery sticks with cream cheese a day... I felt like I was ABSOLUTELY stuffed. In reality I was eating under 1000 cals per day.

Perception of satiety is not a good indicator of true caloric intake. If you are in deep ketosis - especially if you have a surplus depot of carb-hunger & convenience food & intense tasting food induced body fat - you can feel extremely full on almost no intake. This is because ketosis is really good at supplying the body with a slow and steady fuel source (fat from diet, or fat from the body if abundant). The body never turns on hunger for consumption, because it is in a metabolic state where catabolism for energy is all too easy and desired.

Maybe it's pointlessly redundant to say that meat doesn't ACTUALLY count as a "free food" but it will just FEEL that way... I don't think it is, though. Some of us are gluttons ;). A lot of people like to eat even when they're not hungry (such as myself). I can very easily eat even when totally stuffed. I have to consciously make an effort NOT to do this, to listen to my full belly and to not eat just because there's more bacon and bacon is nummy. I doubt I'm the only one out there like this.

Our bodies are highly complex systems. They are not steam engines. If you put in crap it was never designed to process you have no idea how it will react. Primitive people with hard bodies and who do not suffer the diseases of civilisation (cancer, diabetes, etc) do not count calories and a hell of a lot of 'em do nothing but mild exercise. I was watching a documetary about tribes in Papau New Guinea who ate as their ancestors did. They spent most of their time sitting in the sun or messing around with each other (tut! Tut! Dirty mind) in the water. I've never seen such physiques. These people wouldn't know a calorie from a dung beetle. What do you think happens when they get hold of sugar and white flour? The same thing that happens to our fat asses. :D

But is it not true there are also a great deal of people who are effortlessly lean eating very different diets from the extreme high fat one?
There must be something going on here besides carbs to account for this difference.
I think those differences are TYPES of food (plain potato vs salted fat free pringle; plain meat vs deep fried salted chicken wing, etc), AVAILABILITY of food (instantly and in huge portions), and general lifestyle (sitting for HOURS vs always doing some sort of light activity, to strenuous full blown aerobic/weight baring activity).

I think 1 of the best things about healthy low-carbing is that it can free you from the hassle and stress of counting the calorific value of everything that goes into your body. Establishing a healthy relationship should not involve counting of calories, if at all possible, in my opinion. I'm not attacking anyone and people are free to choose of course.
This is the rub.
Everyone has to find a plan that fits their lifestyle and preferences.
I personally find feeling a little more (slight, but not significant) hunger and needing to exercise greater self control a very WORTHWHILE price for not feeling confined to a few "safe foods". I like being able to go downstairs now and know that I can eat watermelon, or a big slice of delicious hearty whole grain bread, or some apple, or orange, or I can have oatmeal or puffed wheat for breakfast, etc.
Also regarding the hunger issue... I feel my hunger, when eating this way, is NORMAL - not excessive. It's normal to feel an impulse to eat when you're out of energy. For me, extreme low carb is more of an unnatural hunger state where in which you can "take or leave" food. It's great for weight loss, but it just isn't normal to feel like that. Food isn't optional.
So relatively speaking, the hunger I feel is MORE... but I'm not starving, nor is it out of bounds of the realm of being satisfiable.

Either way, I would much rather learn portion control and be able to eat whatever and whenever I want, rather than miserably go and take the same boring snack of cheese or meat (and be safe in knowing it would be practically impossible to gain weight due to the limitations of my diet and hunger) that I used to have when I was doing ketogenic atkins. Healthfulness of that aside (my ph was WAY too acidic... felt like crap too) ... I just enjoy choice and variety more than the benefits of really low carb (no appetite, no worry over "blowing it and over eating" etc).

DrippinBld

Wed, Apr-13-05, 14:41

Observing the way others eat is a really poor way to estimate metabolism. Lots of people - women especially (since disordered eating is more common in women) - have strange eating habits and will eat a lot (or nothing at all), but later eat MUUUCH differently.

It certainly isn't the best way. But most people in my classes growing up would be constantly eating junk food, girls included, and be as slim as you like. I know women suffer from eating disorders but very young girls are far more likley to eat whatever the hell they can get their hands on. I do understand eating disorders are increasing among younger females though.

I know when I was fat, I would quite often pretend not to be hungry just to avoid the embarrassment of eating in front of others. At home though I was like a vacuum. Lots of tiny women tend to indulge out with people but later make up for it by eating less (I know I do this quite often now).

Yes. I find that really sad.

People's eating habits aside, people also tend to have a poor ability to judge their own as well as other's caloric intakes. Some people tend to eat LESS FREQUENTLY, but when they do eat they eat a LOT just by nature (without trying). If you tend toward the opposite pattern, it may seem like that person eats way more than you. This is just one example of how people can get the wrong impression of how low/high their consumption rate is.

As a kid I ate what the others kids did.

Either way the point I'm trying to make is I think it is VERY unlikely that you as a tall, larger man has a metabolism that is objectively anywhere NEAR as slow as any woman who wasn't a competitive athlete :)... nevermind a tiny one. Differences in metabolism between individuals is simply not great enough to facilitate that sort of difference. Compared to another large man your metabolism might not be as fast... but compared to a small woman, it will be.

I have to disagree. There are plenty of women who can eat freely and not worry about their weight. I refuse to believe all of them have eating disorders. :) There are people out there both male and female who can metabolise huge amounts of unhealthy food. I can't do that. Never could either.

Basically I'm saying there are limits to how much the body can conserve (meaning your metabolism is still probably much faster than any womans)., and also perception is everything. I'm sure "a small amount of food" to you would be a large amount of food to me, and a small amount of food to me would be a grazing snack to you. Just to give you an idea of what I consider a "small meal"
-half a cup skim milk (40 calories)
-half a slice of low calorie bread (25 calories)
-half a tablespoon of PB (50 calories)
-A quarter of a protein bar (60ish calories)
Total cals: just under 200

To you that's probably a snack so unnoteworthy you wouldn't even consider it a meal... the way I would probably feel about a small piece of fruit (say, a quarter of an apple) with 3 or 4 walnut halves. Grazing snacks.

You're a small sedentary woman with a sucky metabolism. Just because you eat like that doesn't mean every woman of a similar size does. Plus, you've already stated you're "a vaccuum" at home anyway. :)

I would agree with this...
Except that "healthy diet" alone often isn't enough. If food is very plentiful AND very flavorful, and lifestyle sedentary, it's still easy to just eat too much cause food tastes good and is there.
Traditional diets don't have the culinary delights we do here in the west... everything here is intensely flavored and DESIGNED to encourage food addiction, so as to encourage repeat customers. Conversely, traditional foods are much more simply flavored and so habitual over eating (eating passed hunger) is not as likely.
If you eat a handful of raw, rubbery, unsalted almonds... you likely can stop yourself.
If you eat a handful of salted, crunchy, oil roasted almonds... you like will find yourself wanting to eat more just because the textures, salts, and oils stimulated your appetite.

I said a healthy diet - damn it. :) Meat, veggies, fish, eggs and moderate amounts of nuts, berries and fruit if your body can handle it. Cheesecake and fries weren't part of the plan. :)

So while I do believe that the healthfulness of diet will result in a reasonably normal weight... habitual/casual over eating of intensely flavorful food can also promote weight gain that you wouldn't see if the diet was more "simple".

If you eat what your body was designed it logically follows you will have the body that nature intended. Gorging on unnatural crap is not part of the plan. PUT THE DAMN FAKE FOOD THAT YOU GORGE ON DOWN LADY. :)

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Apr-13-05, 15:01

It certainly isn't the best way. But most people in my classes growing up would be constantly eating junk food, girls included, and be as slim as you like. I know women suffer from eating disorders but very young girls are far more likley to eat whatever the hell they can get their hands on. I do understand eating disorders are increasing among younger females though.

It doesn't even have to be an eating disorder. Just poor eating behaviors, not rooted in any real emotional trauma other than the usual social pressures put on women to conform to an aesthetic ideal of beauty and acceptability with eating (in thin women, this would be a desire to maintain thinness but still enjoy food socially... or in heavy women, a desire to maintain an apperance of moderate eating socially, but still over indulge in food in private).

As a man you probably don't realize this but these subtle changes in the way women eat depending on social circumstances are almost universally common. You'd be hard pressed to find a girl who didn't at one time or another pretend to eat less or desire food more depending on her circumstances and the impression she wanted to leave. You don't have to have some terrible ED to do it from time to time.

As a kid I ate what the others kids did.

Me too
... except I often had seconds, and ALWAYS finished my plate...
and I often had big "snacks" right before eating that others didn't have...
etc

Not saying your eating was as extreme as mine (obviously it wasn't since your weight problems are very very mild), but I am saying that our PERCEPTIONS of our intakes are often very incongruent with reality. When I was fat I thought I ate normally. I was eating the same thing as everyone else, right?
Everyone said I ate way more than they did, but I didn't believe them at the time. In hindsight, from what I can remember of the "old way"... I can see how extreme I was. I regarded 1000 calorie TV dinners as "just another meal" the way a normal person might regard a regular sized sandwich.
I am now told that I even fed my PETS more than a reasonable amount back when I was fat. I don't remember doing any of this.

You're a small sedentary woman with a sucky metabolism. Just because you eat like that doesn't mean every woman of a similar size does. Plus, you've already stated you're "a vaccuum" at home anyway. :)

Yep, I'm sure my metabolism is a bit slower ... I lost a ton of weight after all.
Still, I can gaurentee my calorie needs are much closer to other women's than yours are.
Go check out the maintenence forum, listen to the calorie reports to other women of similar heights and weights and average (sedentary) lifestyle. Per day the range seems to be 1400-1700. To MAINTAIN, not lose.
You guys just don't realize how little food it takes to fuel a tiny body and how much easier it is to over eat when portions are so big and your needs so low :).

Oh and I WAS a vacuum, lol. If I were a vacuum now I most certainly would be bigger. Unless you call grazing on veggies and fruit being a "vacuum" :D.

I said a healthy diet - damn it. :) Meat, veggies, fish, eggs and moderate amounts of nuts, berries and fruit if your body can handle it. Cheesecake and fries weren't part of the plan. :)

No argument there.
Healthy diet is important... for most people it will make it SO much easier that it's practically non-negotiable
But for some people (most all women and some men), watching portion size is part of the plan, too :)

If you eat what your body was designed it logically follows you will have the body that nature intended. Gorging on unnatural crap is not part of the plan. PUT THE DAMN FAKE FOOD THAT YOU GORGE ON DOWN LADY. :)
Sorry charlie but I like ta' eat, and I like to experience the sensation of taste. Sue me :).
I also like to be very lean.

If I can maintain the weight I want, with the addition of some "impure foods", you bet your dollar I'll do it. This doesn't mean I don't eat healthy. I eat SOOO much veggies it's ridiculous. Yesterday I ate a HUGE salad, broccoli, multiple kinds of fruit (peaches, strawberries, blackberries, blueberries, watermelon), a huge serving of eggplant and asparagus, as well as higher carb veggies like yams (1/3 a yam) and carrots...
So I DO eat healthy...
but I ALSO allow myself to indulge my sweettooth by eating small bits of protein bars, sugar free jam, etc. What's the harm? Food is meant to be enjoyable AND nutritious and adding some "impure food" isn't going to negate the fact I as a staple eat extremely healthy as a rule. I'd rather work on portion control and savor diversity rather than try to eliminate food as ANY source of pleasure by limiting myself so much.

DrippinBld

Wed, Apr-13-05, 15:08

Please correct me if I am assuming incorrectly, but it sounds like you're using your perception of satiety when eating the all-meat diet as a guide to your TRUE calorie count.

I was making the case for not counting calories but eating as close to nature as intended instead. And my uber-fat diet wasn't all meat.

You know when I was in deep ketosis and eating not more than a couple eggs, and celery sticks with cream cheese a day... I felt like I was ABSOLUTELY stuffed. In reality I was eating under 1000 cals per day.

So why are you bothering to count calories? That's the point I making. Eat as close to nature intended as possible and eat until you're satisfied.

Perception of satiety is not a good indicator of true caloric intake. If you are in deep ketosis - especially if you have a surplus depot of carb-hunger & convenience food & intense tasting food induced body fat - you can feel extremely full on almost no intake. This is because ketosis is really good at supplying the body with a slow and steady fuel source (fat from diet, or fat from the body if abundant). The body never turns on hunger for consumption, because it is in a metabolic state where catabolism for energy is all too easy and desired.

Groovy isn't it? It helps prevent you from overeating naturally.

Maybe it's pointlessly redundant to say that meat doesn't ACTUALLY count as a "free food" but it will just FEEL that way... I don't think it is, though. Some of us are gluttons ;). A lot of people like to eat even when they're not hungry (such as myself). I can very easily eat even when totally stuffed. I have to consciously make an effort NOT to do this, to listen to my full belly and to not eat just because there's more bacon and bacon is nummy. I doubt I'm the only one out there like this.

If processed foods cause you a problem, don't eat them or eat less of them. I fail to see how counting calories will prevent you from eating tons of bacon. If you can restrict a food item to an amount that fills you then maybe it's a wise idea to give it a miss. Eat a chicken breast or pork chop instead. :)

But is it not true there are also a great deal of people who are effortlessly lean eating very different diets from the extreme high fat one?

Yes there are. People who can metabolically cope with modern foods. Like some of those darn skinny 5ft women I so loathe. :)

There must be something going on here besides carbs to account for this difference.

I've already stated that there is.

I think those differences are TYPES of food (plain potato vs salted fat free pringle; plain meat vs deep fried salted chicken wing, etc), AVAILABILITY of food (instantly and in huge portions), and general lifestyle (sitting for HOURS vs always doing some sort of light activity, to strenuous full blown aerobic/weight baring activity).

As I've already said lots of primitve folk hardly excercise and eat as much as they like. They ain't fat.

I like being able to go downstairs now and know that I can eat watermelon, or a big slice of delicious hearty whole grain bread, or some apple, or orange, or I can have oatmeal or puffed wheat for breakfast, etc.

That's common. Lots of people don't want to give up foods they love. I still eat fruit BTW. Very occasionally while I'm losing though. I can eat a couple of pieces a day and not gain.

Also regarding the hunger issue... I feel my hunger, when eating this way, is NORMAL - not excessive. It's normal to feel an impulse to eat when you're out of energy. For me, extreme low carb is more of an unnatural hunger state where in which you can "take or leave" food. It's great for weight loss, but it just isn't normal to feel like that. Food isn't optional.
So relatively speaking, the hunger I feel is MORE... but I'm not starving, nor is it out of bounds of the realm of being satisfiable.

Good luck to you. But as for a low carb diet producing unnatural hunger - man (basically the same as he is today) has been eating low carb for 100s of 1000s of years. It's actually the modern insulin-roller coaster that is unnatural. That's indisputable. It's quite an addicting experience to satisfy that ferocious hunger with a lump of carbohydrate. I remember it well. :)

Either way, I would much rather learn portion control and be able to eat whatever and whenever I want, rather than miserably go and take the same boring snack of cheese or meat (and be safe in knowing it would be practically impossible to gain weight due to the limitations of my diet and hunger) that I used to have when I was doing ketogenic atkins. Healthfulness of that aside (my ph was WAY too acidic... felt like crap too) ... I just enjoy choice and variety more than the benefits of really low carb (no appetite, no worry over "blowing it and over eating" etc).

I sincerely hope you can make portion control work. It's a rare person that can though. The weight watchers 99% failure rate is testament to that. As for my my diet, I find it very enjoyable, have much more energy and a more positive outlook - I'm just not eating garbage like rice. But, guess what, I'll still indulge in those naughty foods - but it'll be very occasional. Certainly not staples like they used to be for me.

DrippinBld

Wed, Apr-13-05, 15:13

Just looked at your weight loss. Congratulations. Truly inspirational.

ADDYNOVA

Wed, Apr-13-05, 15:28

Just looked at your weight loss. Congratulations. Truly inspirational.
I was reading your conversation and was beginning to get very upset about how mean you were being. But then I read this post and I remembered that yes this is the war zone and we can debate issues and still be civil to each other when everything is said and done.
I also want to congratulate ItsTheWooo on your weight loss!

DrippinBld

Wed, Apr-13-05, 15:58

It doesn't even have to be an eating disorder. Just poor eating behaviors, not rooted in any real emotional trauma other than the usual social pressures put on women to conform to an aesthetic ideal of beauty and acceptability [snip]

I don't think this is applicable to the vast majority of 10 year old girls. At that age everyone would eat whatever they could get their hands on. It made me fat while others remained at a healthy weight. You'll find lots of women on here who ate what they wanted when they were younger but age has caught up with them. A tiny minorty of my female peers may have been starved at home but the vast majority had parents stuffing their little faces with treats. Just like me. :) Northern working-class parents in England generally have the belief that the more you stuff 'em the better they're looked after. :)

I am saying that our PERCEPTIONS of our intakes are often very incongruent with reality.

There sure are. But cavemen weren't fat. :)

Yep, I'm sure my metabolism is a bit slower ... I lost a ton of weight after all.
Still, I can gaurentee my calorie needs are much closer to other women's than yours are.

Almost certainly. But calorific *needs* don't tell the whole story. Calorific suprlus do not always result in weight gain. There are "underweight" people who simply cannot put weight on. There are plently of frustrated, skinny 140-pound young men trying to bulk up but find it impossible no matter how much they eat. They eat till they're ready to puke but do not put any weight on. There's certainly a big surplus there but they do not put on weight. The issue is more complex than calorific needs.

Go check out the maintenence forum, listen to the calorie reports to other women of similar heights and weights and average (sedentary) lifestyle. Per day the range seems to be 1400-1700. To MAINTAIN, not lose.
You guys just don't realize how little food it takes to fuel a tiny body and how much easier it is to over eat when portions are so big and your needs so low :).

This isn't a valid reason for portion control. It's just as easy for a man to carry on eating past the point of satiety. Most people who follow a low-carb diet don't want to though. As you said, 1000 calories was enough for you when you were in ketosis. Why would you need to count calories? Oh yeah, because you want to eat bread and stuff. :)

If you want to eat unnatural foods and are prone to being overweight then you're probably going to have to strictly count calories. Sure. Most dieters who count calories are overweight (and nearly always remain that way) and often excercise strenuously unlike those carefree people who lounge around in the sun in Papau New Guinea who have physiques that I truly envy.

I'd rather work on portion control and savor diversity rather than try to eliminate food as ANY source of pleasure by limiting myself so much.

As I've said, that's your prerogative. A lot of people cannot exercise such self control though. But if you can - more power to you.

DrippinBld

Wed, Apr-13-05, 16:15

-half a cup skim milk (40 calories)
-half a slice of low calorie bread (25 calories)
-half a tablespoon of PB (50 calories)
-A quarter of a protein bar (60ish calories)
Total cals: just under 200

I assume you eat six times a day.

Forgive me I, I'm truly not trying to be offensive, but do you think you can stick to eating meals such as this 1 for life?
Wouldn't you rather eat 3 meals and have something like a chicken breast fried in chilli and garlic with a salad topped with lemon juice and salt? I hate people negatively commenting on my food so I know how that goes. :)

Pork chop and salad time for me now. :)

KryssiMc

Wed, Apr-13-05, 16:54

Wow...this is a great thread and alot of food for thought. There is validity on both sides. It is true that some of us (I was one of them until age 35) could eat whatever we wanted when we were younger and not gain an ounce.

I was 87lbs until my 35th birthday. This was after two pregnancies as well. I hit 35 and my metabolism slowed. I still ate what I wanted and never went above 122 lbs. Now that is heavy for me at 5'2" but slim for others. Then I recently learned that I was hypoglycemic and started Atkins for that. The weight dropped off in a month and I can only assume that this was due to not drinking 7 to 10 Pepsi's a day.

So I'm not sure if it was the cutting out of sugar or the less calories I was taking in...I may not ever know and don't care to. All I know is that it worked. My calories were at 1200 due to what I ate not really by choice, but I think I would have freaked if I noticed I was eating 2000 calories
due to the ingraining of the lowfat/lowcal life that I was taught.

I also notice that my hunger increases during TOM, something that men just could never understand. There has to be a reason that women crave chocolate at that time. I wonder if cavewomen ever felt that way but didn't have any way to express what they were feeling because there was no chocolate yet? Does anyone have an answer for this one? Or do you think that it's the knowledge that chocolate raises endorphins in the back of our minds that makes us have this craving?

I would be really interested to know a male and female perspective on this one!

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Apr-13-05, 16:58

I assume you eat six times a day.

Forgive me I, I'm truly not trying to be offensive, but do you think you can stick to eating meals such as this 1 for life?

Definitely.
I don't feel deprived.

What I described above would be, to me, somewhere in between a snack and a meal... it would be considered a "large snack" or alternately a "very small meal".
Would eat a sized meal like that when...
1) I am planning on going out to eat at a restaurant/overeating later (and thus will be consuming hundreds of calories and carbs)
OR
2) I went to a restaurant/over ate the previous day (and thus need to compensate for over eating)
Basically, if I need to seriously cut cals because I'm doing (or have done) some serious eating, I would break out the "large snacks/small meals" :).
I would eat a few of these per day (4xs about). Dinner will be a "normal weight loss meal" though.

My normal weight loss meals would be more like 300-350 cals. They would be 2.5 ounces of meat/fat/protein food with a large salad with low cal dressing (think sugarless ketchup, splenda, vinegar, herbs & spices), and/or steamed veggies with no/low calorie dressings (vinegars, lemon juice, herbs, etc). Maybe a bit of added fats and a small piece of fruit OR small bit of higher carb veggie.

My normal maintenance meals are about 400 calories each on average (breakfasts are smaller, dinners larger). They are comprised usually of 2.5-3 ounces some leaner meat (but fattier than before), copious amount of veggies, a few servings high cal/carb veggies, small bits of fruit, not many added dressings (but more than my "designed to lose" meals), and small bits reduced fat dairy.
In maintenance, I will eat more of everything - more bread, more grain, more fruit, more "fun food" in between meals as well.

This is very sustainable to me... if anything I am trying NOT to lose more weight. I need to learn to eat more often.
Even though I'm not extremely low carb, I still do get that "take it or leave it" thing with food and often find myself neglecting to answer hunger .

Wouldn't you rather eat 3 meals and have something like a chicken breast fried in chilli and garlic with a salad topped with lemon juice and salt? I hate people negatively commenting on my food so I know how that goes. :)

Pork chop and salad time for me now. :)
Oh yes, my meals as a staple ARE low carb, meat + veggies, exactly as you describe...
I don't make it a habit to consume many starches or fruits for calories. These things are supplementary.

A more appropriate comparison is this:
Would I rather slather the chicken in grease and cheese, and smother that salad in processed oil
*but*
not be able to eat a dessert OTHER than a few strawberries OR sugar free jello (because if I do I'll soon find myself over eating (due to not learning portion control) & gaining (due to consuming too many calories) and bleating about "frankenfoods" and "carbs" and how "evil" they are)

*OR*

Would I rather take a smaller portion, trim the meat of excess fats, and use vinegar-based dressings with just a tiny bit of oil/fat...
*but*
be able to consume for dessert just about anything I want (within reason) - ice cream, or cookies & milk, or a heavy slice of multigrain bread with pb and jam & some milk, or yogurt with lots of fruit, or puffed grain cereal

For me the choice is easy.
I'll take the lower fat meal with more options, and more ability to EAT and TASTE food, thank you.

By not being so HIGH FAT, I don't have to restrict my choices in what I CAN eat as much. Furthermore, it's MUCH easier to "cut back" when I go to far... I just cut out the indulgences, and reduce portions a bit, and weight falls off.

I personally enjoy food. I LOVE it in fact, as my high weight shows. Anything I can do to increase my options and choices and ability to eat I will embrace. You probably don't like food as much as I do, you probably look at it far less emotionally than me (which isn't uncommon for a guy... women as a rule tend to like to eat more than men since food is very emotional and sensual). You probably don't understand how someone could NOT want to eat a diet with decent tasting food, that requires NO thought, and NO need to think about consumption, that will effortlessly and unconsciously produce low intake.
If you liked food as much as I did - the act of eating, of tasting, of diversity in flavor, of preparation - just EVERYTHING about food, you might be able to understand how ketogenic LC (for all it's benefits) is about as appealing as living life in greyscale.

I would much rather eat lower fat meats and salads (which, btw, if prepared creatively taste JUST AS GOOD if not BETTER to me now than the heavier, greasy, fatty SIMPLE foods I USED to eat) and be able to eat ANYTHING I WANT multiple times per day.
It's just a difference of preference :)
Food, to you, is obviously another "maintenance of the body" - in out over with.
Food, to me, is an experience and something that brings me a lot of pleasure. Reducing fat and increasing the ability to eat (WITHOUT sacrificing my weight/health) is a welcomed prospect.

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Apr-13-05, 17:17

Just looked at your weight loss. Congratulations. Truly inspirational.
Thank you :)

Oh and by the way ...
EVEN IF I were to totally abandon portion size considerations and just eat my fill of fat and salad... Odds are my "natural weight" would probably fall MUCH higher than I would like it. If I had to guess, I would probably say somewhere around 150 pounds (I became amenorrhetic at 140 pounds so I'm going to assume that my natural weight is around 150). One of the terribly sad things about allowing yourself to get so heavy is that you permanently set your body up for wanting a higher body fat percentage than it otherwise would have. My genetic weight is probably somewhere around 130 (which is on the healthy side but normal... I'm basing this off the fact my sister of a similar height who doesn't really rigidly control eating is 130 and also has similar sugar metabolism problems... and my other sister who is 5'7 with the same situation has a natural weight of 145).

I don't want to be 150 pounds. Ideally I would like to get back up to 115. Currently I dropped more weight than I would like to and am trying to regain some (slowly, without losing control) and wear a size 2. I like the way I looked in a size 4 misses. I liked it better than I did in a size 12/14. It was MUCH too heavy for me.

So, because of my personal history, the sort of size I would LIKE is a lot different than what I would get, I'm quite certain of that. Some conscious control of energy is going to be a necessity if I want to obtain the body I want. If I'm going to have to do it anyway, might as well eat what I want while doing it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that... maybe it's just youthful vanity, but what's the harm? The guy who goes to the gym to build muscles he doesn't have "naturally"... or any girl who starts out normal weight but likes how she looks 10 20 pounds thinner... is it so wrong to push your body outside of it's "natural realm" (within reason) if it produces a more aesthetically pleasing, confidence-boosting result? I'm sure there are things about your apperance that you purposefully changed that AREN'T natural, right?

The Munch

Thu, Apr-14-05, 04:43

My goodness...

this is not the way I had intended to start here.

Been lurking for some months, so I know the cast of characters (of course you know me not at all). But I have speed registered -- will update the info when I have time, e.g., books et al.

And the reason? I was following this debate with some interest, then saw something that set off alarm bells and flashing red sirens.

I became amenorrhetic at 140 pounds
Woo... you became amenorrheic. And have you remained so? And how old are you? And how much underweight?

I am concerned, Woo... so much that I have enabled the e-mail option so we may discuss this privately IF YOU WISH. Your call. I am a middle-aged woman (just turned 51) who has never weighed over 160 pounds or under 125... as an adult. My periods have been like clockwork for 40 years now.

I hope you have resumed your menses? If not, you have a major medical issue that MUST BE ADDRESSED and who cares how much you weigh? When your endocrine system stops functioning normally, you no longer have good health. Please reassure me. Thanks.

As an intelligent young woman (highly so), you know the profile for anorexia. If you weighed 120 pounds or more, all systems go, I would congratulate you on your marvelous accomplishment, with everyone else here. As things stand... I'm not so sure.

maybe it's just youthful vanity, but what's the harm?
Plenty. And you know it. Too little weight or body fat can be just as dangerous as too much. Especially for women. WE NEED OUR FAT -- it's as vital as any other essential organ. The "fat organ" has multiple functions. And I seem to hear Diana Schwarzbein, M.D., shouting inside my head. Amenorrhea cannot be good (although it happens to elite women athletes as well). But by self-description, you are sedentary, not athletic. So when you hit 140 pounds, something went out of whack. Something vital.

The standards of beauty and thinness maintained in our culture... for young women especially... are grotesque and unhealthy by any definition. I firmly believe that. The gauntness associated with eating disorders (anorexia nervosa and bulimia) is considered "aesthetically pleasing." We should become thin as sticks, like boys who happened to develop breasts? NO.

Long story short. You are probably the LAST PERSON who needs a low fat diet. Skim milk and all. (Don't get me started on skim milk... grrrr) The fear of dietary fat continues even on low carb forums? Sad. You need to normalize at a weight that will support healthy functioning of all body systems... including (especially) the reproductive system. Forget 115 and go for the natural genetic weight that lets you consume more food, more fat.

The lecture on exercise will come later. Essential nutrient... vital to human well being. We need it no less than oxygen, protein, adequate calories, water and sleep. Sedentary sucks. No exceptions.

Well... now that I've endeared myself... :D

A big HELLO to all. I will introduce myself further when time permits. As a night owl who works evening hours, my posts will happen mainly in the wee small hours. But this is too late even for me! The sun also rises. Uh oh. Time for bed where a little cat waits patiently.

A pleasure to be here; look forward to chatting with many of you.

Andrea (resident insomniac)

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Apr-14-05, 07:02

Hello,
Welcome to the forum Andrea
I don't want to take this thread off it's tracks by talking about my weight :D. But please be assured that I do take amenorrhea very seriously and am taking steps to correct it which includes eating more food and slowly regaining a little bit of weight.
Do not worry about me... my periods have never been regular, I've always had sketchy hormones, in fact before starting LC I NEVER got one (which in hindsight I see it was probably PCOS from insulin resistance doing that).

I think most of it is just that my body is in shock from losing so much weight. I think my body would DESIRE to be 150 pounds but I don't think a lower weight would be "unhealthfully thin" to the point where I become totally amenorrhetic. Lots of people push their weights and physiques in unnatural directions. Many if not most women here are trying to "fight nautre" by becoming a little more lean. I'm not going too extreme I don't think. I mean I know I DID go to far... but I realize that and am coming back a little. I'm a little bit underweight currently (7 to 4 pounds depending on other factors)... likely too thin for my body but not emaciated or anything of the sort. I am, like I said, slowly gaining weight and eating enough every day.

Like I said I think most of this has more to do with the rate I lost rather than being totally depleted of fat. I lost my period at such a high weight, and with such a high body fat percentage, that in fact I'm sure this is the main reason. I just need to maintain my weight and eat enough and things will start working again.
I speculate that 150 pounds is my natural set point but I DON"T think it is the minimum weight I can maintain and be healthy. Lots of people maintain weights over/below set point and are perfectly healthy. Nutritional status of your body is the most important thing, and a bare minimum of body fat (which I do have and will have more of :) ). Right now my body is depleted... I lost nearly 200 pounds and it's understandably FREAKED out. I'm going to go back to 115, renourish it... wait a couple of weeks, see how things are from there.

It's hard for you to understand how I can be unwilling/afraid to gain weight. That's likely because you don't have the same weight history and eating issues I do. You have to understand weight gain is scary to me. I equate weight gain with loss of control over food and eating behavior. If you had my history and high weight you would understand how scary it is to MAKE yourself GAIN. You might understand the temptation to want to lose a little more (unconsciously) for assurance that you aren't gaining. I don't think the fear is irrational and it's understandable... not good but not irrational either.

Anyway sorry for going on so long. In summary, I DO recognize amenorrhea as a sign my body doesn't have enough nutrients, I AM taking it seriously and eating more and seriously stoping weight loss, I AM slowly gaining weight and prioritizing health over some "ideal weight".

The Munch

Fri, Apr-15-05, 04:02

I don't want to take this thread off its tracks...Fear not, I will do that for you. :rolleyes:

Begging the indulgence of our moderators...

I have a few more thoughts and suggestions.

My younger sister did not begin her menarche at a normal age, so at considerable expense my parents sent her to a specialist. After years on hormones or specialized treatment -- cannot recall the details -- she finally developed a normal unassisted menstrual cycle. But it took YEARS and cost a bundle. She is quite short (under 5') and inclined to gain weight around the middle. Probably insulin resistant. PCOS? That was unknown in the 1970s. She does have a harder time than I, maintaining a normal weight. Low carb (some form) probably would be GREAT for her, too... but she sticks to the standard healthy carb, lower fat diet recommendations (when trying to be "good").

May I suggest then -- take it or leave it -- that a specialist in women's medicine or endocrinology might assist your "sketchy hormones." Some of us are born with genetic glitches and mainstream medicine has its place. In general I regard the pharmaceutical industry with a jaundiced eye but at times their drugs work wonders.

It's hard for you to understand how I can be unwilling/afraid to gain weight. That's likely because you don't have the same weight history and eating issues I do. You have to understand weight gain is scary to me. I equate weight gain with loss of control over food and eating behavior. Not to the same degree, perhaps, but I do have eating issues! That's why I'm here. Never could eat a single cookie or two... it had to be the entire box! Y'know? This goes back practically to puberty... hey, doesn't everything? ;) Also I am a control freak (so there).

For several years I have worked with an anorexic young woman. She's OK now... at 5' 7" and 140 pounds looks slender and willowy. Of course she thinks of herself as FAT and always will. It's an obsession. She could drop 5, 10 pounds and remain in a healthy range... the danger is always that she won't stop there.

Anorexia carries a cluster of related traits: it tends to afflict intelligent young women with perfectionist tendencies and a fear of LOSING CONTROL. Anorexics typically "equate weight gain with loss of control over food and eating behavior." Bingo. Do I think that you are anorexic? NO. You have good insight into your behaviors. But you do see... obesity and emaciation are often two sides of the same coin and may affect the same person at different times. The appearance of the disorder has changed, but eating and body image remain disordered and health remains at risk.

And behind the individual, always, lies the disordered CULTURE that refuses to allow young women a healthy range of normal body weights. A woman can never be too rich or too thin... Like H***.

I speculate that 150 pounds is my natural set point but I DON"T think it is the minimum weight I can maintain and be healthy.Me neither. A number on a scale is meaningless, anyway, and I'm considering wiping the slate of my own statistics. Krissy thrives at 99 pounds and I look pretty good at 135 (people generally place me at 10 pounds lighter than scale weight). Point is: there are LOTS of STOPS between 107 (too little) and 150 (too much). If you were considering health alone... where would you feel best? Can you ignore the mirror and the Size 2 clothing -- at your age... probably not, sigh -- and focus on finding an optimum body build, whatever that may be? Rather than a predetermined weight and clothing size. It's tough, I know, when the role models all look like Desperate Housewives.

Even for me, at age 51, it remains trial and error. So we change course when necessary and re-adapt (modify) our behaviors. Enjoy the ride and roll with the punches! (to coin a cliche or two) But I have no doubt you'll negotiate a healthy solution as you bring your considerable intelligence to bear on this challenge. On a personal note... I enjoy your nuanced intellect and transparent honesty re the issues. Very appealing.

Could these last posts be snipped and placed more appropriately within the Health and Technical Forums? Can that be done? Then this thread may return to its assigned topic as the newbie ducks and dives for cover.

:help:

Andrea

Kristine

Fri, Apr-15-05, 07:55

Hi Andrea. :wave:

Could these last posts be snipped and placed more appropriately within the Health and Technical Forums?

No. :) Half the threads around the forum end up in a discussion of something that could be discussed in another forum, but to cut and paste all of that would (a) take all day, and (b) confuse people who were following the thread. :daze:

You're more than welcome to harangue Woo in her journal. ;) (Just kidding, Woo!)

The Munch

Wed, Apr-20-05, 03:33

Hello, Kristine. :wave:

Thank you for the reassuring words. Often I feel like the original Sidetracked Sister. Off track and over limit...

I am happy to meet the smart lady who shares my passion for sweet red peppers. :yum: Unlike you I have a limited budget, so must exercise restraint most of the time. But in March they sold for 99 cents / lb at Jewel Food Stores (a division of Albertsons). Oh wow. I had a FEAST.

THANK YOU for making that distinction between sweet fruits and not-so-sweet. We are told to EAT FRUIT as though only the sweet ones count. And how much sweeter they have become through hybridization... So I eat them sparingly, as an occasional treat (grapefruit, orange, berries). But live on zucchini, yellow squash, red and green peppers, tomatoes, avocados, cucumbers...

You're more than welcome to harangue Woo in her journal.Haven't made it that far down the page, unlikely I'll be looking over Woo's shoulder (or anyone else's).

I have thoughts on portion control that may return this thread to its subject. More later. But for me... counting carb grams works as a sort of Point System (a la Weight Watchers). So I count grams, nothing else, and it works perfectly. Less cumbersome by far than calculating calories. In fact, I agree with Dripping Blood: it's "exciting and inspiring." Fun actually. Like solving a puzzle. See how the pieces fit; arrange and re-arrange. Each day you get a clean slate and start afresh. But then I have an accountant's mind with built-in calculator. Point is: the numbers on low carb are SIMPLE. I run them in my head, then jot down on a scrap of paper. No big deal. Counting calories? Major headache. Often a migraine.

Love your signature line, Kristine. How true.

Andrea

P.S.

Aha -- discovered the JOURNAL button. Now I know where the messages above should have been posted.

KryssiMc

Wed, Apr-20-05, 08:48

I just have to say this...I am learning soooo much from this thread. Andrea and Woo, you are both highly intelligent women and it's a privilege to read all you have written. I wish both of you continued success on the road to being healthy.

sexee_babe

Sun, Apr-24-05, 11:55

HUH, I didn't know you had to count calories???? WHAT?!! OMG!

The Munch

Wed, Apr-27-05, 03:07

Kryssi --

:wave:

SO SORRY that I could not respond to your sweet message sooner.

I came to this board because the MOST INTELLIGENT low carbers on the planet hang here. Awesome and stimulating, too. Lots of good info. When time permits, I will make a proper introduction in the "Introduce Yourself" room and start a few threads on topics of interest. The whole question of Saturated Fats has been bothering me. More later.

I do have many strong opinions, supported or no, and in time you will hear them all! :rolleyes: You lucky people, you. Unfortunately a crazy work schedule has me running with little time to post or play.

LOL, Kryssi -- I just read your profile. And the pictures... you have a stunning figure, babe. Gorgeous.

You go, Girl!!! But, ah... play that alternative punk stuff in another room. :daze:

Andrea

The Munch

Wed, Apr-27-05, 03:31

Hi, Tami --

Many low carbers count calories, too. The objective: portion control.

It's one of those YMMV things... your mileage may vary. Many of us came to low carb diets in order to be liberated from calorie counting. Many follow Atkins by the book, have fabulous success going from Induction to OWL to maintenance, never so much as think about a calorie. More power to them.

Others find that they stall, and manage to restart weight loss by lowering caloric intake -- i.e., eating LESS -- while remaining on a low carb plan.

Whatever works for you... Myself, I have counted calories but find controlling them a lost cause. My daily existence requires a high activity level with lots of exercise (whether I want it or not). Never could stick to a restricted calorie diet plan. The body rebels. It does not want to starve.

You seem to be doing fine so far, Tami. Just fine! If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But someday, should you decide to count calories, no need to consider yourself a low carb failure. That would be merely a tweak.

Andrea

KryssiMc

Wed, Apr-27-05, 14:01

Kryssi --

You go, Girl!!! But, ah... play that alternative punk stuff in another room. :daze:

Andrea

Ahh, Andrea thanks for the compliments but it's the rock n roll that keeps me dancing and therefore exercising...woo hoo! :wave:

MetalMom

Wed, Apr-27-05, 14:16

I read in the book that calories dont count but I am confused as so many people say they do. I guess everyone is different some need to watch them and some dont. Im running about 1200 to 1500 a day with very low carbs and I excercise like a fanatic so Im doing pretty well at that rate.

ojoj

Thu, May-19-05, 10:51

I'm a bit late coming into this thread, but I worked out that since starting Atkins and right through to this day I average about 4000 cals and 20-30g of carbs a day (I've always stayed with induction more or less cos I enjoy it!).

My weightloss stopped of its own accord about 16 months ago (9 months after starting) and give or take a couple of pounds has stayed the same. by that time I was about 14lbs under my estimated original target.

Jo

serrelind

Thu, May-19-05, 11:28

mio1996

Thu, May-19-05, 12:18

In DADR (1972 version), Dr. Atkins tells about a patient who works in an office, does not work out, and loses weight on 5000 calories per day.

Ojoj's diet sounds a lot like mine. I eat around 3000 calories per day and 20-30 carbs.

My diet is almost entirely meat, eggs, cheese, butter, lard, olive oil, coconut oil, and green leafy vegetables.

serrelind

Thu, May-19-05, 12:25

Mio I can understand you eating around 3000 cals a day as a guy and not gain weight, but 4000 cals on a 127 lb woman? It's harder to fathom.

dmcoluccio

Thu, May-19-05, 13:14

I personally have to watch my calories now due to my slow metabolism. I have Hypothyroidism. Years ago I did Atkins and ate all I wanted and lost a lot of weight. I just think everyone has a unique body and some things will work for others while it won't for some. I think all men are lucky when it comes to weight loss. I haven't read a post yet from a man that has difficulty losing weight. Has anyone else? Deanna

cygirl

Thu, May-19-05, 15:00

mio1996

Thu, May-19-05, 15:52

Mio I can understand you eating around 3000 cals a day as a guy and not gain weight, but 4000 cals on a 127 lb woman? It's harder to fathom.Agreed :) Metabolisms are different, though--I'm sure there are plenty of people of all sizes who can eat that much, but not everyone. I've thought for some time that perhaps the metabolic advantage works differently for different people, anyway. I'm not sure I could even eat that much consistently--although some days I certainly do.

I would love to see her menu as well!

ojoj

Fri, May-20-05, 01:41

Ojoj, that's amazing! Can you post your typical menu? Did you yo-yo diet before doing Atkins? I think I would gain pretty quickly on 4000 cals a day, induction or not hehe. What is your activity level like? Did you always eat that high amount of cals on Atkins or did you gradually increase cals? Sorry for so many questions.. I'm just very curious how you could have lost so much weight on 4000 cals a day.

Serre

My diet is made up of mainly fish/seafood, chicken, eggs, dairy and leafy greens, loadsa fats ie butter, olive oil, mayo etc. I've never really liked red meat, although I occasionally force a small piece of steak down. Once a week I have a fried brekki with everything!. I have a passion for nuts, especially macadamias, almonds and peanuts (although they arent really from the nut family!) and have at least 100g a day.

So three meals a day and at least two snacks!

I probably ate more when I started Atkins, cos i was a huge eater previously, gradually ketosis took over and my appetite diminished as did my size. I wasnt really conscious of calories when I started, but I havent changed anything really, maybe quantites a little, but I did work out my calories a while ago for now and when I started, and it seemed to average out at just over 4000 a day. some days more, some days less.

I just thought thats how Atkins worked?? "Dont count calories" so I didnt!!!

I DONT EXERCISE!! Apart from the usual domestic stuff (lawn mowing, vacuuming, walking dogs, etc) ... Oh and I take the kids swimming and ice skating a couple of times a month

Jo

RD64

Fri, May-20-05, 05:04

I don't count them but I am a man and loose very easily if I'm doing things right. I'm from the school that each individual is smart enough to figure out what works for them.

serrelind

Fri, May-20-05, 05:08

Jo, thanks for the clarification. Eating a high fat low carb diet does seem to heal a metabolism pretty effectively. I lost 20 lbs on a low fat moderate carb diet (lots of veggies and fruits). I think I lost weight because cals were so low (I didn't count but I would bet I was under 1000 most days). Now that I'm on maintenance I've increased fat and protein significantly and lowering carbs (haha the opposite of what most low carbers would do going through the dieting phases). I am betting I'm eating at least 1500 cals daily. The nice thing is I can feel my metabolism cranking up big time to compensate for increased calories and I don't gain. I'm always warm. Before I was always cold. I would bet that if I had been eating 1500 cals of low fat, I would have gained. A friend of mine who's not really dieting but on your typical American diet, has at least 30 lbs to lose, and she's always complaining of being cold. I don't exercise much except for a hour of walking several times a week. I find it fascinating how our bodies respond to different types of food groups. I will keep on increasing calories slowly until I find myself gaining. I think as long as I stick with whole foods, keep fat high, and carbs low, I should be ok. I don't want to stick to watching calories for the rest of my life if I can help it :)

Serre

ojoj

Fri, May-20-05, 07:32

I'm by no means an expert, but I feel that some of the fat I eat is used for energy and the surplus goes straight through!? I wont go into details as to why I think this ( and best not to ask!!!), but I'm sure a lot of the fat I eat doesnt get digested.

excessive carbs on the other hand tends to cause an insulin response which turns the surplus into body fat??!

Jo

cygirl

Fri, May-20-05, 08:23

I'm by no means an expert
Jo

Oh i disagree,I think with how well you have done you should be classed as a expert. :agree:

ItsTheWooo

Fri, May-20-05, 14:00

My diet is made up of mainly fish/seafood, chicken, eggs, dairy and leafy greens, loadsa fats ie butter, olive oil, mayo etc. I've never really liked red meat, although I occasionally force a small piece of steak down. Once a week I have a fried brekki with everything!. I have a passion for nuts, especially macadamias, almonds and peanuts (although they arent really from the nut family!) and have at least 100g a day.

So three meals a day and at least two snacks!

I probably ate more when I started Atkins, cos i was a huge eater previously, gradually ketosis took over and my appetite diminished as did my size. I wasnt really conscious of calories when I started, but I havent changed anything really, maybe quantites a little, but I did work out my calories a while ago for now and when I started, and it seemed to average out at just over 4000 a day. some days more, some days less.

I just thought thats how Atkins worked?? "Dont count calories" so I didnt!!!

I DONT EXERCISE!! Apart from the usual domestic stuff (lawn mowing, vacuuming, walking dogs, etc) ... Oh and I take the kids swimming and ice skating a couple of times a month

Jo

Jo
It is amazing to me that a 127 lb woman who appears to live a relatively normal lifestyle (maybe slightly more active) is maintaining on 4000 calories per day! Are you sure you're not adding a lot of calories from cooking fats that actually get wasted out? LIke for example if you put 4 tbsp of butter to cook eggs, do you count that as 400 cals extra (even though most of that is going to be tossed). Or maybe you are weighing meat raw and then calculating the calories for cooked food based on raw weight (6 ounces raw ground beef is not the same cals as 6 ounces cooked).

I just don't see how that's possible - small woman, average lifestyle, only 3 meals a day and 2 snacks, but is consuming football player calories - without being diseased (hyperthyroidism, diabetes, etc).

I'm not trying to antagonize you or accuse you of lying or anything, I'm very curious to see what you're eating because hell I would LOVE to be able to eat that much. If it's true I'd like to know your secrets :).

Personally I find that my body will maintain itself on lots of calories now that I eat more. My carbs are still pretty high, too. I really don't track calories anymore unfortunately so I can't give any really accurate numbers but I eat quite a lot, over 1700 I think. TYpes of food are important. I find I can eat my fill of foods that are really low in carbs and be alright: nuts, meats, cheese. OTOH overdoing carby food causes problems (of course) very readily.

mio1996

Fri, May-20-05, 17:26

Woo, I think this quote tells it all:I'm by no means an expert, but I feel that some of the fat I eat is used for energy and the surplus goes straight through!? I wont go into details as to why I think this ( and best not to ask!!!), but I'm sure a lot of the fat I eat doesnt get digested.

excessive carbs on the other hand tends to cause an insulin response which turns the surplus into body fat??!

Jo

If my inference is correct, she is saying that the excess fat she eats is creating a laxative effect, hence the "goes straight through" statement.

If so, I would be worried about the absorption of fat soluble vitamins and such, as well as the eventual loss of normal bowel activity.

In other words I believe she is maybe eating 4000 calories but is not absorbing anywhere near that much. Assuming I am correct, this is maybe a purely physical form of bulimia without the normal psychological components--hate to say it that way. I'm not at all saying there is an actual eating disorder involved here. I doubt the excess fat is being eaten for the sole purpose of laxative effect.

If I have offended you, Jo, it is unintentional--I'm just saying what I see here--the fact that you were a little cryptic in the way you wrote your last post may mean you are worried a little about this--and you probably should be...laxative abuse of any kind, intentional or not, can be a very dangerous thing. If this is what is happening you may want to stop and think about it a little.

Just being honest here.

serrelind

Fri, May-20-05, 19:46

Actually I doubt that there is any form of bulimia here. Jo simply has a high metabolism. Combined that with a ketogenic diet (high fat, adequate protein, and low carbs), and excess energy that the body doesn't need (fat) is burnt off as ketones and pass through the body. I probably could raise my energy requirement to 4000 cals and not gain, but I would probably have to do it very slowly hehe and keep fat very very high and carbs very low. To move from 1500 cals to 4000 cals suddenly would probably be too shocking to my body and I would gain.

Serre

Frederick

Fri, May-20-05, 21:14

To move from 1500 cals to 4000 cals suddenly would probably be too shocking to my body and I would gain.
Serre

Or, you can just try my version of the fat-fast? LOL

serrelind

Fri, May-20-05, 21:28

Or, you can just try my version of the fat-fast? LOL

Fred, it's a good thing for you that I would gain weight doing your version of the fat fast. I mean otherwise I would happily eat ALL the chocolate ice cream, all the chocolate truffles, and wash em down with all the chocolate milk shake, that there would be no chocolate left for you! ;) Hehehe.

Serre

ojoj

Sat, May-21-05, 03:10

gosh, I didnt realise my statement or my calorie intake would create such controversy!!

I'm not bulimic and I dont think I have a high metabolism, I'm just me!

My understanding of Atkins and the way it is supposed to work is that provided I stay in ketosis (which on 20 -30g carbs a day I do) my body burns fat for energy. My insulin levels are low enough not to cause my body to store unused energy from carbs (there arent enough anyway) and fat doesnt get automatically stored by the body as body fat - so it has to go somewhere and as I say I have reason to believe it doesnt really get digested :o !!

Having talked it over at some length with a doctor friend, he's of the opinion that this is the case for people in ketosis and this is why Atkins works.

A couple of months ago I had a full blood test and everything was totally normal ie cholesterol, thyroid, liver function... you name it I had it tested..... Actually my hormone levels were a bit "wonky" suggesting that my body's heading towards menopause - I'm not too keen on that one, but thats another story!!!

Out of interest, Yesterdays menu

Brekki;
3 scrambled eggs cooked in butter, 3 rashers of bacon, 2 LC sausages and mushrooms fried in olive oil.

lunch;
handful of prawns, 1 chicken breast, half an avacado, covered in masses of mayo and a green salad

dinner/supper;
indian restaurant. Chicken tikka, !/2 a portion of cauliflour bhaji, 1/2 a portion of mushroom bhaji about 1/4 pint of sour cream poured over the top

snacks;
100g macadamias nuts, 100g peanuts, 50g almonds, slice of LC bread and butter with cheese and cucumber

I havent worked the calories out on that! However, this morning I'm not at all hungry, so I probably wont have anything til lunchtime.

BTW I'm not reccomending this is how it would be for everyone, but it works ok for me

Jo

TheCaveman

Sat, May-21-05, 06:27

KryssiMc

Sat, May-21-05, 09:11

potatofree

Sat, May-21-05, 09:45

I'm curious as to how it's different as well.... obsessing over whether your lettuce is 8 calories or 10, or worrying all day whether the extra half a gram of carbs you accidentally ate by not weighing your avocado... both unhealthy, IMO. But I don't think most people here are referring to that kind of behavior.

Tracking your calories to maintain a level you can lose at is no different to me than keeping an eye to the carbs to stay in ketosis.

KryssiMc

Sat, May-21-05, 10:46

Exactly Tater! (How are ya by the way?) There is obsessive behavior in both ways of eating...one shouldn't generalize like that.

ojoj

Sat, May-21-05, 12:09

Well I personally dont count anything anymore - lifes too short!! I dont eat high carb food at all. Maybe somedays I eat more carbs/cals some days less.

The best thing about it is that I am in control of my appetite and I dont constantly think about food - sometimes I actually have to remind myself that its lunchtime and almost force myself to eat.

but we're all different and we all have to follow our own path to success

Jo

mio1996

Sat, May-21-05, 12:39

Actually Jo, that's exactly how I understand Atkins as well, and while I'm usually not putting away 4000 calories in a day, Atkins explains it very clearly why, if you keep your carbohydrate intake under a certain level, not only do you not gain weight, you CAN'T gain weight. As in: biochemical impossibility.

Counting calories is an eating disorder.Actually the way I read Atkins I unserstood it to say if your carbs are low you simply usually won't eat enough to gain weight, not that you absolutely can't gain weight. I don't know for myself--when my carbs are kept low it is almost impossible for me to overstuff myself with food, but I don't know: if I drank 6000 calories a day worth of olive oil and it all got digested would I gain weight? No idea on that...I never remember Atkins saying it was impossible to gain weight on a lc plan, though.

Life without bread is actually used as a weight gain diet for some people--of course, it is only mildy ketogenic.

I hope everyone here can see why I said what I said in my previous post. Jo said she didn't think the fat was all getting digested, so I assumed it must be coming out undigested. Sorry if I misunderstood, Jo. Only you know if I did or not :) As everyone here who knows me well understands I am a firm believer in the metabolic advantage--I was just worried about you is all :)

potatofree

Sat, May-21-05, 13:20

Actually, in DANDR, he says quite the opposite when he talks of eating til satisfied, not stuffed, and about the metabolic advantage not being license to gorge... I never once saw any passages that said it's impossible to gain weight taking in high calories.

If I missed it, I'd appreciate someone pointing it out for me.

ItsTheWooo

Sat, May-21-05, 18:56

I definitely believe it is more difficult to gain weight from high fat foods and on a low carb diet. I've observed this myself. Often times I've binged out on a can of almonds, mac nuts, or a roast chicken only to discover to my pleasant surprise that the next morning I felt as if I had dropped weight. Not so with carbs. On mothersday when I ate cheddar bay biscuits, fudge brownies and rice in generous portions, the next day I could definitely tell I had packed away some fat.

So I do believe for physiological reasons it's much harder for the body to create fat when eating induction food and much easier for it to burn it or waste it instead. Even still, certainly there must be some limit to how much you can eat - even in ketosis. I say this not to offend or be a pain but because it just seems logically sound. Consider this; every organism on earth today is the product of millions of years of successfully competing for contested resources. One of the chief contested resources is food. If humans, when eating as intended, could NOT store excess food as fat in anticipation/preparation for more lean times, isn't it likely that some other creature who COULD do this would have an advantage over us?
Isn't it likely we wouldn't have been able to thrive?

Storing fat isn't an accident or undesirable objectively speaking: it's a crucial, essential metabolic process, it means survival. Why would our bodies waste energy like that if they are functioning as intended? That's not evolutionarily sound. When the body wastes energy it's usually cause for alarm, a sign of disease: diabetes or something like that.

This leads me to believe either ketosis is an unnatural state to be in, OR (more likely) it's possible to gain weight in ketosis.

JennLynnRN

Sun, May-22-05, 01:35

Counting calories is an eating disorder.

What an ignorant statement! Try thinking about how you may be offending others before posting garbage like this. You just told hundreds of people that they have an eating disorder. Nice.....

ojoj

Sun, May-22-05, 06:55

What an ignorant statement! Try thinking about how you may be offending others before posting garbage like this. You just told hundreds of people that they have an eating disorder. Nice.....

Tell me to mind my own business, but I think the Cavemans quote is looking at it from a natural approach - paleolithic man had no need to count calories, its a modern day phenominum that probably causes us a lot of our food issues.

I'll crawl back under my stone now!!! :roll:

Jo

cygirl

Sun, May-22-05, 09:44

Klodo2

Mon, May-23-05, 05:17

This Caveman is not on the Atkins diet/wol hisself so why the nasty comments anyway. :lol:Well, this is the Low-Carb War Zone, so this would be the place, if any, to make such sweeping statements. As I understand it, this subsection is not specifically an Atkins forum, and this is also the place to have heated discussions.

Kristine

Mon, May-23-05, 07:26

Counting calories is an eating disorder.

I know you think you've come up with a witty quotation that's worthy of being in your signature for all to see, but I find it more than a little offensive to people who have suffered real eating disorders.

Counting calories is as much an eating disorder as cracking open a beer is alcoholism.

Counting calories is just counting calories. This is what it means to have an eating disorder. (http://www.sfwed.org/whatarethey/edordiet.php)

KryssiMc

Mon, May-23-05, 07:31

I know you think you've come up with a witty quotation that's worthy of being in your signature for all to see, but I find it more than a little offensive to people who have suffered real eating disorders.

...and those of us who constantly are accused of having them. I actually had a person ask me the other day how my finger tasted because I lost all this weight so quickly, can you believe that?

cygirl

Mon, May-23-05, 13:23

[QUOTE=Kristine]
Counting calories is as much an eating disorder as cracking open a beer is alcoholism.
/QUOTE]

How very true. :lol:

viv

Mon, May-23-05, 14:43

Wow! Caveman & sweeping generalizations!

What bugs me is Atkins appears to be more into portion control rather than counting calories - regardless, portion control is very similar to counting calories... the only reason why i count calories is I CAN NOT limit my portions! counting calories forces me to do so.

Also - the atkins website states one should not eat more than 6oz. of meat at a time and no more than three 6oz. serving per day. (This looks to me like calorie counting!)

viv

cygirl

Mon, May-23-05, 14:52

Also - the atkins website states one should not eat more than 6oz. of meat at a time and no more than three 6oz. serving per day. (This looks to me like calorie counting!)
viv

agree :agree:

TheCaveman

Wed, May-25-05, 08:59

Counting calories is an eating disorder.

To willfully malnourish yourself for a made-up number goal? That's an eating disorder.

Reducing the complexities of human metabolism to simple arithmetic is a big mistake.

Tracking your calories to maintain a level you can lose at is no different to me than keeping an eye to the carbs to stay in ketosis.

The difference, of course, is that your body needs calories, but does NOT need carbohydrate.

KryssiMc

Wed, May-25-05, 10:08

To willfully malnourish yourself for a made-up number goal? That's an eating disorder.

Another weird statement. My goal is not a made-up number. It is the weight at which my body looks and feels best. Never have I been "malnourished" at 1200 calories. I ate well and was never hungry.

But, you're a man and you would have no idea how the female body works, or what our wants, needs or goals are. We're just different. But when I see how great I look and feel there is no way that I could have an eating disorder. I just consider myself more organized in my eating.

As far as needing carbs goes...technically you don't need carbs, but you DO need veggies, and those have carbs in them, and so I eat them. A+B=C.

Kristine

Wed, May-25-05, 10:36

To willfully malnourish yourself for a made-up number goal? That's an eating disorder.

You're still missing it. That can be one minor facet of an eating disorder. To go back to my alcohol analogy, "willfully malnourishing yourself for a made-up number goal" is like binge drinking here and there. It's unhealthy. It's a bad habit. But it is not the full-blown addiction. There's a big difference. The college kid who parties every weekend is not an alcoholic.

Go to bodybuilding.com or a similar site and try to tell me that what those people do to cut for a competition (for example) is indistinguishable from the behaviour of a delusional anorexic or a bulimic who's bingeing and purgeing is out of control. One is a behaviour that, whether you agree with its "nutritional-correctness" or not, fits into someone's healthy lifestyle without harming them. The other is a life- and soul-sucking addiction.

Another note: calorie counting is not necessarily malnutrition, and refraining from calorie counting does not necessarily mean you're getting proper nutrition. They are two seperate issues and I have yet to see anyone one this site who drastically cuts calories with total disregard for their nutrition.

Lisa N

Wed, May-25-05, 16:01

The difference, of course, is that your body needs calories, but does NOT need carbohydrate.

This is, of course, true. But...not every body has the exact same calorie requirements the same as not every body can handle the same level of carb intake.
Some people have no idea what a normal size portion is or have lost touch with their body's hunger/satiety cues and so can easily eat way beyond what they need unless attention is paid to the details, at least until they get a better handle on what their body actually needs as opposed to what their brain wants. Is it 'normal' to count calories? Probably not, but neither is it 'normal' to not be able to recognize when you're full. ;)
How else would you suggest that a person go about losing weight? Cutting the amount of food eaten until weight loss begins? That's certainly an option, but unless one measures intake in some way, whether it be calories, weight of the food, physical size of the portion, etc... how does one go about determining how much is or has been eaten? Would you consider any form of measurement disordered?
As Kristine pointed out, eating disorders are multi-faceted beasts made up of many components. The ED individual is obsessed with counting calories (or fat grams or carbs, etc...) and spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about the numbers and food in general. Compare this against an average calorie counter inputting their meals into Fitday, noting the numbers long enough to mentally calculate how much to eat at their next meal and then doesn't think about it again. The difference is in the degree of the behavior, not the behavior itself and singling out one behavior to label 'disordered' is inaccurate and out of context of the larger picture.
ED individuals often have a warped body image; when they look in the mirror, they can fixate on one part of their body that is less than *perfect*, call it fat and obsess about cutting calories (or exercising) to extremes until they like what they see. The problem with that is...they never seem to like what they see no matter how thin they get and will continue with the behavior no matter how thin or sick they get, sadly sometimes to the point of death.

ItsTheWooo

Wed, May-25-05, 22:34

To willfully malnourish yourself for a made-up number goal? That's an eating disorder.

Why is doing it "willfully" bad?
Is going with the unnaturally suppressed appetite state of ketosis to cause undereating and thus weightloss somehow a better sign of mental health?
(Please do not say most people lose weight on low carb by eating a lot of food. People lose weight on low carb PRIMARILY because it suppresses appetite and they eat less... the "metabolic advantage" is a secondary factor).

Reducing the complexities of human metabolism to simple arithmetic is a big mistake.

No one is saying calories are the holy grail all we are saying is that for some people we cannot naturally under eat and lose the weight we want to lose, at the rate we want to, with the appetite suppression & metabolism boost of low carb alone.

The difference, of course, is that your body needs calories, but does NOT need carbohydrate.

If I were to eliminate carbohydrate from my diet, I find it almost physically impossible to eat enough and maintain weight... yet I am not overweight. I would have to consciously force myself to consume food. Apparently my body DOES need carbohydrate ;D. The lower I keep my carbs, the harder it is to maintain weight and not lose it.

SO the question I'm asking is, how is willfully removing carbohydrate from diet so as to "trick" the body into burning its fat and not eating a sign of better mental health than eating a varied diet without strict carbohydrate limitations, but watching calories instead? I eat when I am hungry. I just make sure my portion sizes don't get out of hand (which is all to easy to do when carbohydrate is not practically eliminated from diet).

Gaelicgal

Fri, May-27-05, 09:44

ojoj

Fri, May-27-05, 10:34

Gaelicgal, I think the idea is that when you start you count carbs, as you progress, your appetite naturally diminishes by being in ketosis therefore your intake of food/calories naturally dimishes too.

As you get nearer to your target you should find that your food/calorie intake is about right for your size, but to make sure and to maintain, you may occasioanlly need to look at both carbs and calories - thats how I see it.

And I seem to be lucky cos I maintain on around 20 - 30g of carbs and 4000 cals a day!!!

Jo

Lisa N

Fri, May-27-05, 11:21

Okay...I'm confused. So starting out I should count carbs and calories then? I feel that I might as well do another diet/WOL plan if I have to count carbs and cals. Might as well do Dr. Phil or Weight Watchers then...how many calories would you even know to limit? Sounds more confusing and harder to do both for most people. Weight Watchers and eating unrefined and unprocessed sugars would basically be the same thing. How disappointing to hear you should count calories to be effective on Atkins Plan. So, really what I'm reading is basically "a calorie is a calorie" still. Hmmm...I would have to reread his book again but I don't remember Dr. Atkins being concerned with calories as much as he was telling people not to overeat on his plan.

Galicgal, many people find that they lose just fine counting only carbs and not worrying about calories. Keep in mind that those who post about such things are the ones that are having difficulty losing weight and that could be for a variety of reasons, not just excess calories.
Dr. Atkins never said that calories don't count or that noone should have any need to count them. What he did say is that most probably would not.
There are studies that have shown that there is an advantage with low carb over other plans (low fat, high carb) in that those on low carb could eat between 300 and 600 more calories daily than those following the alternate plan and still lose as much weight or more than those on the alternate plan with less loss of lean body mass (an important difference!).
If you're losing just counting carbs, then why worry about counting calories?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ;)
OTOH, if you're following the plan correctly and still having difficulty, then calories might be something to consider...either too few or too many.

Gaelicgal

Fri, May-27-05, 20:13

binki

Fri, May-27-05, 21:16

I've said it before: it's always the people who are having trouble losing weight who decide they have to count calories. I wonder if there's a chicken/egg thing going on here.

I know, for me, I lost the most and the fastest when I only counted carbs. I have gotten paranoid about calories lately and have only crept up scalewise.

I exercise, so there's a muscle thing going on too, but I miss those old days when I put whipped cream on everything and shed pounds like crazy. I think I should go back to that.

Nancy LC

Fri, May-27-05, 23:24

I envy Ojoj's metabolism. I have quite a long history of thyroid issues which started with a hyperthyroid disorder. Most people lose weight when their thyroid pumps out too much thyroid hormone... not me! I actually gained weight. My doctors called it "paradoxical". They said it is rare, but it happens.

So, being paradox-girl, shouldn't I lose weight when my thyroid goes into reverse and slows down and eventually dies? Nope! Unfortunately the paradox does not go in that direction for me.

I truly do have to watch the calories or there's absolutely no way in hell I can lose weight. Thyroid can slow your metabolism down up to 30% percent or more! Shoot, even dieting can cause your thyroid to slow down. Actually, lacking thyroid can slow your metabolism down 100%. Eventually you will die if you don't produce it.

But I think there's something most people just don't understand until they have their own issues with hormones and that is we're all extremely different. There's probably more garbage floating around in our bodies that controls stuff like our metabolisms, whether or not we're fidgeters, whether or not we can build muscle easily, how hungry we get, how easily we burn fat, and all that kind of stuff.

Nothing like good old hormones to really humble you when you think you're in control of your destiny.

ojoj

Sat, May-28-05, 02:31

Thanks Lisa and Ojoj. Appreciate it very much. My body reacts well to eating low carbs. It's like an "aahh" so I know I should be eating that way - all the time. I'll just go for it and just count the carbs like I did before and not worrry about the calories unless or until I have to...thanks! Here I go!

Yep, thats the idea. Calorie counting comes if/when you plateau or get to target and need to fine tune your eating.

As for metabolism and calories. I refuse to believe that the human body is as simple as "calories in calories out". We are not engines that need a certain ammount of petrol/gas to run a certain distance. We are highly complicated and far more is going on inside us. I question the methods used by the industry to work out how many calories are in food in the first place and I certainly question how and what our bodies do with them when we eat different types of food.

Jo

Lisa N

Sat, May-28-05, 07:05

I question the methods used by the industry to work out how many calories are in food in the first place and I certainly question how and what our bodies do with them when we eat different types of food.

Jo, I think you're on target to question that. Calories are a measure of energy. The amount of energy in a specific food is determined by burning it completely in a bomb calorimeter. The problem with this is that the human body is not a bomb calorimeter nor does it 'burn' food completely. A bomb calorimeter does not use complex metabolic pathways of varying efficiencies to break down the food, either, nor is it influenced by a host of hormones (either in excess or deficiency).
For this reason, I also question the 'calories in, calories out' theory, especially when it comes to statements such as "If you burn X amount of calories per day and you take in Y number of calories per day less than that, you should lose Z amount of weight per week". It just isn't that simple.

Nancy LC

Sat, May-28-05, 08:35

There's nothing simple about calories in, calories out. You think its simple because you don't really understand all the processes that are going on in your body, no one really does.

But there are so many variables like, the sort of bacteria colonizing your gut, the levels of various hormones, how much muscle mass you have, how much you fidget every day, how high your body temperature is, how well you convert food to energy, that influence both sides of the equation. That's why there's such a disparity between someone like Jo and me.

Ultimately though, if you could account for all the variables which is probably impossible, it would end up being calories in - calories out.

binki

Sat, May-28-05, 09:08

You think? I can't imagine that 2000 calories of Chips Ahoy can possibly have the same effect as 2000 calories of chicken, or 2000 calories of butter, or 2000 calories of raw spinach, for example. If you could manage to keep the number of calories the same—whatever number that ended up being based on the individual person's metabolic needs, which I absolutely agree vary wildly—would the effect be the same at the end of the day? I can't believe it would.

(not counting the fact that the cookies would make any of us sick as a dog!)

Nancy LC

Sat, May-28-05, 09:50

Well, like I said, there's lots of variables to work with there. Protein is relatively harder to turn into useable fuel than carbs are. So sure, if you had the information about how much of the calories are wasted during conversion, then you could account for calories in/out. Like I said, it isn't just a simple calories in/out, it's very very complex, and there's more variables there than anyone can control for and derive a simple equation for.

That's why it is folly for someone else to say that you don't have to control calories. Unless they know exactly how your body works, they haven't got a clue as to whether or not you need to control your calories. Their body may be very inefficient at converting food to fuel and yours might be the Prius of the metabolic freeway. :D

binki

Sat, May-28-05, 14:18

True, true. So many variables.

My bottom line: it's way too much thinking for me. ("Uh...it was my understanding there would be no math...") I think I need to obsess about fewer food attributes, not more, at this point. I find myself dreaming about recipes and carb counts...that's not good!

TheCaveman

Wed, Jun-01-05, 11:56

Another weird statement. My goal is not a made-up number. It is the weight at which my body looks and feels best. Never have I been "malnourished" at 1200 calories.

The 1200 calories sounds made up to me. In your journal, you assert that at 1200 colories the body goes into starvation mode. Where did you hear that this is the magic number, or that this is the magic number for you? You heard this number somewhere (not from Atkins, of course) and decided that this number was the least number of calories you could eat without doing damage to your body. Hence, your 1200 calorie goal.

I also see that you are on the Maintenance phase of Atkins. Counting calories is not a feature of Atkins Maintenance. Do you know what your critical carbohydrate level is? You're obviously above that level, since you feel the need to count calories in order to maintain your weight.

What would happen if you followed Atkins and lowered your carbohydrate level back down to where you would maintain your weight without counting calories? Ever tried it?

I'm not sure I understand the science (biological or psychological) behind upping carb intake to the point where you have to count calories. Care to elaborate?

KryssiMc

Wed, Jun-01-05, 13:41

I ate around 1200 calories for the day. I never went under that. To do that would put your body into starvation mode and that is just as bad as being metabollicaly resistant. It's also just plain wrong when you can eat well and still lose. EAT people.

Watch your reading comprehension there, Caveman. This is what I said in my journal. I assert that you don't want to go into starvation mode. That 1200 was based on my BMR, and therefore not made up.

And I do know my magic number...it's 150g. If I go below that, I lose weight. If you really read my journal like you said...you would have read that 1200 was what I did to lose the weight. I haven't really eaten only 1200 calories a day in awhile. I count to make sure I don't go above 2000 which, according to my BMR would be too much for my body.

BMR works for me...the proof is in the pudding. I am 100 lbs and have been maintaining for almost 4 months now. I was never over 122 lbs and never see myself gaining weight ever again. Keeping it on is another story....

I would also like to repeat what Nancy stated about there being so many variables. Hormones are one thing, that you, Caveman, would have no idea about and they play a big role in things. Also to figure in is my hypoglycemia, something you seem to have missed in my journal. Can't we agree that it's these variables that would make LCing a different experience for both of us?

TheCaveman

Wed, Jun-01-05, 14:45

Watch your reading comprehension there, Caveman. This is what I said in my journal. I assert that you don't want to go into starvation mode. That 1200 was based on my BMR, and therefore not made up.

You're taking the BMR idea (entrenched in calorie theory as it is) a bit far, and I'm glad it Works For You, but I'm not glad that you take this conversation personally.

I've very quickly looked up a BMR calculator http://www.bodytrends.com/bmrcalc.htm since I find the concept of BMR far too simplistic to apply to biology or waste space in my bookmarks, and I'd like to find out what you're getting at. Please tell me if this particular calculator is messed up, as I don't care to examine the model.

First, I plug in some values into the estimator portion of the calculator: age, weight and height. I don't know your age, but I know a weight (122) and a height (62). So I plug in the weight and height, and guess on the age: 25. Nope, that calculates to 1365 calories. I tinker with the age until I find that 1200 calories is the BMR of a 60 year old. You're not 60 years old. So I must suspect that that either the calculator is messed up (very possible) or that you calculated your BMR using a different weight.

So I thought maybe that you used the weight you WANT to be as the weight value for your calculations. Yes? Makes sense. While I refuse to announce a woman's age here based on a probably-messed-up BMR indicator, I was able to tinker with the age with 100 and 62 until 1200 calories resulted. (You look much younger than your BMR indicates, by the way!)

(Interestingly, a 5 foot 2 inch, 100 pound one-year-old girl has a BMR of 1382 calories. The model is not complete enough to rule out absurdities like this, apparently. Too bad, I was having fun there for a second.)

Of course, the very definition of BMR is that this basal rate is the rate at rest, not doing anything but keeping heart pumping and lungs breathing and whatnot. The second part of this calculator will tell us how many calories we need if we are doing something other than laying in bed all day. Let's figure a lazy day of 12 hours of reading, sitting, driving, and eating. The result is 2208 calories per day.

Again, please let me know if you think this calculator is a bad example and I'll drop it or use a different calculator of your liking.

I would also like to repeat what Nancy stated about there being so many variables.

I agree, so I'm not sure how the inflexiblity of the BMR appeals to you. Even the environmental temperature can render this measure pretty well meaningless (as the calculator owners admit). Don't Nancy's variables just blow this BMR nonsense out of the water?

Hormones are one thing, that you, Caveman, would have no idea about and they play a big role in things. Also to figure in is my hypoglycemia, something you seem to have missed in my journal. Can't we agree that it's these variables that would make LCing a different experience for both of us?

I saw the hypoglycemia, and since I wasn't getting personal, I didn't mention it to you. Seems to me it would change everything. Can you tell me?

I know quite a bit about hormones, and sexism aside, and I'm quite sure that I'm far more convinced than anyone else here that hormones run the whole show. The WHOLE show.

So which is it? Hormones or BMR? They have nothing to do with each other.

KryssiMc

Wed, Jun-01-05, 15:40

Actually, for me it's all three. BMR, hormones, and the hypo. I am almost 39 BTW, and thank you for saying I look younger. No I did not take anything you said personally. I like a little give and take every now and then and that's why I'm posting in the War Zone. You are correct in assuming that I took my goal weight for the calculation as well. I wish I could say that hormones run the whole show...I know how to deal with them...it's the hypo that gets me because it's a new situation.

A loose translation of the BMR,f or me, would be the 10x rule...10x my goal weight is the low end and 10x my start weight was the high end. No inflexibility there...as it's a loose translation. What I take it to be is a good guideline...nothing else.

Because I exercised, I would therefore need more calories...but, instead I stuck to the low end with moderate activity causing a more rapid weight loss. Low carbing for me is only for the hypo, not really the loss.

That being said, it's hard for me to reach that 150g. It makes me have to eat a bunch of meals that amount to no more than 20-30 carbs per meal because then I have a crash about an hour afterwards even with "good carbs". Cutting back on that number makes me actually lose weight even with over 2000 calories. Atkins, you could say, works a little TOO well for me.

Enter the calories. Too many calories keeps the weight on, but in the wrong places....like my belly. I don't know why this is either...maybe someone else could enlighten me on that one. So I choose to keep calories 2000 and under and my carbs at 150g. The result? A perfectly flat stomach and thin thighs!!! My after pix look nothing like me anymore. I am thinner than that with alot more muscle definition. Woo Hoo!

Who cares really as long as I'm not starving myself, keeping my sugar in check, working out, and eating whole and healthy foods. This is a totally "natural" formula for my type of body. YMMV. Cheers to you for trying to find out more information. Just consider yourself lucky that you're a man...;)

ojoj

Thu, Jun-02-05, 03:50

Well I still think that calories, the way they are stated and worked out by the bomb caloriemeter is far too primative to matter - there needs to be far more research on different types of calories and how the human body deals with them. I just dont believe they are anything like as "black or white" as the experts make out.

My body is not an engine that just needs re-fueling to make it go and whats left over turns to fat! So therefore counting calories going in is only ever gonna be a very rough guide. What we eat causes far more complex things to happen

I believe that counting carbs is only scratching the surface and counting calories is pointless.

The fact is that our ancestors had to eat to live, they didnt have access to food 24/7 and they certainly didnt have many (if any) sugary treats - we havent lost that overriding instinct to eat but we can satisfy that urge far too easily, and we're slowly killing ourselves by doing so

Jo

TheCaveman

Thu, Jun-02-05, 10:21

Attack of the Mods!

You're still missing it. That can be one minor facet of an eating disorder. To go back to my alcohol analogy, "willfully malnourishing yourself for a made-up number goal" is like binge drinking here and there. It's unhealthy. It's a bad habit. But it is not the full-blown addiction. There's a big difference. The college kid who parties every weekend is not an alcoholic.

For some reason I can't figure out, the alcoholism/addiction analogies totally miss the mark for me. I'm hoping this thread doesn't devolve into another carb addiction discussion as I offer another, equally meaningless analogy. While the every-so-often booze binge doesn't necessarily indicate alcoholism, and the nightly tanking sessions do, we could make any number of other analogies that are good analogies in themselves, but helpless to describe the other thing we're talking about. I'll make up another one right now, for instance. While someone slashing their wrists is in deep trouble, shall we not be troubled by the person who just makes tiny secret cuts on their legs?

Go to bodybuilding.com or a similar site and try to tell me that what those people do to cut for a competition (for example) is indistinguishable from the behaviour of a delusional anorexic or a bulimic who's bingeing and purgeing is out of control. One is a behaviour that, whether you agree with its "nutritional-correctness" or not, fits into someone's healthy lifestyle without harming them. The other is a life- and soul-sucking addiction.

I would argue that bodybuilding to that extent is harmful. Sorry.

not every body has the exact same calorie requirements the same as not every body can handle the same level of carb intake.

Indeed, which is why Atkins structured his program the way he did. Critical carbohydrate level and whatnot.

Some people have no idea what a normal size portion is or have lost touch with their body's hunger/satiety cues and so can easily eat way beyond what they need unless attention is paid to the details, at least until they get a better handle on what their body actually needs as opposed to what their brain wants.

That sword cuts both ways. Some people have no idea what a normal portion is or have lost touch with their body's hunger/satiety cues and so can easily eat way under what they need unless attention is paid to the details, at least until they get a better handle on what their body actually needs as opposed to what their brain wants (calorie counting).

How else would you suggest that a person go about losing weight?

I would suggest Atkins, as always.

eating disorders are multi-faceted beasts made up of many components. The ED individual is obsessed with counting calories (or fat grams or carbs, etc...) and spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about the numbers and food in general. Compare this against an average calorie counter inputting their meals into Fitday, noting the numbers long enough to mentally calculate how much to eat at their next meal and then doesn't think about it again. The difference is in the degree of the behavior, not the behavior itself and singling out one behavior to label 'disordered' is inaccurate and out of context of the larger picture.

This definition conveniently excludes most of the members of this site. Again, we would love to have some proof that our eating isn't disordered. We can define anyone's eating into or out of an eating disorder. Rhetorically: Is limiting the amount of carbohydrate in the diet an eating disorder? Is dieting an eating disorder?

I understand that you're defining disorder by the degree of harm that comes to the eater in question, and you and most members of the forum see no harm in Fitdaying and making general mental notes as to the amount of food they are eating. No one ever died of Fitday.

Calorie theory is 19th century science, and the BMR is its 20th century clothing. (Notice what century we are actually in now.) The BMR model does not include the influence of hormones on the body because calorie theory was set in stone long before hormones were ever discovered. Any theory describing the workings of the human body that temporally must exclude the existence of insulin should have gone the way of the leaches.

I don't think puking up everything you eat is a multi-faceted beast. And I don't think that basing how you nourish your body on calorie theory is a multi-faceted beast, either. Beasts, the both of them, and sometimes beasts are simple. If we ignore the workings of the body and suppose that mental state (be it hunger or insanity) comes from someplace other than the endocrine system, everything gets bestial REAL fast.

But don't take my word for it. Ask a biologist.

Wyvrn

Thu, Jun-02-05, 11:41

I would argue that bodybuilding to that extent is harmful.No kidding. Those beautiful glowing bodies are fake-tanned, dehydraded, practically falling down from low blood sugar and electolyte imbalance. In fact it's not uncommon for competitors to pass out backstage, and not unknown for them to die of electrolyte-related cardiac arrest. And the ultra-low BF levels typical for successful competitors is not particularly healthy either, in fact it cannot be maintained without losing muscle mass.

I'd love to see bodybuilding competitions require testing for healthy hydration and electrolytes, and a reasonable BF level for the competitors. Never happen though... that skinless ripped look is what sells supplements.

Wyv

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Jun-02-05, 13:10

Caveman:
What would you say to a person like me who used to be 280 pounds, tried very low carb, and decided that they didn't feel very good eating that way? They felt really tired and run down even a while after the induction period? As time went on they felt a little better but never quite "optimal"? I felt better when I added more carbs but unfortunately this meant I had to use greater control over energy intake.

What would you say to someone else in the opposite position: they feel great in ketosis, BUT they don't find ketosis to be a very compelling appetite suppressant. So they are not losing very much weight and are still very overweight.

You are assuming your experience is the standard but it really isn't. Not everyone finds extremely low carb to be a huge energy boost (even after carb withdrawl) and not everyone finds it alone is effective enough to control appetite to normalize weight to thinness. More carbs and conscious notation and control of energy intake are useful tools to some people and it doesn't necessarily imply disordered behavior. I look at it like this. Something is disordered when it is causing a problem in your life. If controlling energy isn't causing any problem emotionally or physically, if it is just a tool the person uses to shape their body the way they want it to look, how is that a disorder?

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Jun-02-05, 13:25

Calorie theory is 19th century science, and the BMR is its 20th century clothing. (Notice what century we are actually in now.) The BMR model does not include the influence of hormones on the body because calorie theory was set in stone long before hormones were ever discovered. Any theory describing the workings of the human body that temporally must exclude the existence of insulin should have gone the way of the leaches.

I don't think puking up everything you eat is a multi-faceted beast. And I don't think that basing how you nourish your body on calorie theory is a multi-faceted beast, either. Beasts, the both of them, and sometimes beasts are simple. If we ignore the workings of the body and suppose that mental state (be it hunger or insanity) comes from someplace other than the endocrine system, everything gets bestial REAL fast.

But don't take my word for it. Ask a biologist.
I don't believe a "calorie is a calorie" so it doesn't matter what you eat, that you just take 100 calories of cookies or 100 calories of chicken, throw them into your "body furnace" and expect the same results.
I don't think calorie counting as an exclusive measure to control weight can within any reasonable margin of accuracy predict weight loss for this reason. The cartoonish childish and ridiculously simplified view of "calories", as you said, ignores the complexity of our bodies.

That's not to say I don't think calorie counting can be a useful tool, and that if you reduce calories it is highly likely you will lose weight. For one, it helps familiarize the dieter with portion size and energy density of food. Second, if all other aspects about the diet remain equal, it is very likely that reducing portions using calorie counting as a guide will result in weight loss.

Do I expect someone to ALWAYS lose weight on a 10% fat, 70% carb, 1500 calorie diet if they were eating a 35% fat, 50% carb 1600 calorie diet before? Nope. I wouldn't be surprised if they GAINED weight and felt crappy and hungrier, too, due to the unhealthy amount of carbs and fat in diet. The body is not only not getting all the nutrients it needs to run well and thus preserve metabolic rate, BUT it is also based primarily around foods that promote fat anabolism and are deterrents to fat catabolism.

OTOH, do I think it's more likely than not that someone eating a 50% fat, 20% carb 1800 calorie diet will not lose weight, but then lose weight when their 50% fat, 20% carb diet becomes a 1400 calorie diet? Yep, you bet.

So I don't think anyone will say calories are the ONLY word, but they are a useful tool for dieters to help control energy intake. Losing weight is like building a puzzle in the dark; counting calories is like being handed a flash light. It won't explain everything, it's still important to make sound nutritional choices that make the body healthy and keep metabolism up, but you'll do a whole lot better with having "light" shed on the energy you are consuming than you would be just going with the body (most bodies tend to resist weight loss after awhile ... if you only have to knock off 20 you likely won't have a problem, if you were morbidly obese you likely will).

kwikdriver

Thu, Jun-02-05, 13:26

I'd love to see bodybuilding competitions require testing for healthy hydration and electrolytes, and a reasonable BF level for the competitors. Never happen though... that skinless ripped look is what sells supplements.

They only get down to that level a few weeks out of the year. Swimmers taper, wrestlers cut. It's just part of sport, to do what it takes to get yourself into absolutely peak condition for one brief moment.

The interesting thing about professional bodybuilding is the cutting edge experimentation being done with performance enhancing drugs and nutrition. Those guys and (shiver) gals are making lab rats out of themselves trying different things out. It's too bad official science is so down on PEDs, because there's a lot of good stuff the public is missing out on. I personally first learned about low carbing from a pro bodybuilder who had been doing it for years. If those guys stop pushing things to the edge, everyone can lose out on the knowledge they pick up along the way.

TheCaveman

Sun, Jun-05-05, 16:24

Losing weight is like building a puzzle in the dark; counting calories is like being handed a flash light.

Oh Wooo, oh Wooo. I could not have come up with a better metaphor for what we are discussing. Brava!

Caveman:
What would you say to a person like me who used to be 280 pounds, tried very low carb, and decided that they didn't feel very good eating that way? They felt really tired and run down even a while after the induction period? As time went on they felt a little better but never quite "optimal"? I felt better when I added more carbs but unfortunately this meant I had to use greater control over energy intake.

What would you say to someone else in the opposite position: they feel great in ketosis, BUT they don't find ketosis to be a very compelling appetite suppressant. So they are not losing very much weight and are still very overweight.

What would I say to both of these people? I'd say they weren't getting enough sleep.

It is easy to make the connection to lack of energy with lack of sleep, but that's too easy, so we'll ignore it for now. Sleep, running neck-and-neck with diet in importance, is a key determiner of hormone regulation in the body.

Losing weight IS like building a puzzle in the dark, which is exactly where the human body does all of its puzzle building. The last 20 years of sleep endocrinology research at NIH places nighttime darkness as THE place where slimness and general health are decided. The complex and expected overnight cycle of hormones and neurotransmitters very literally rewrite the mood and appetite agenda for the next day. It is being rested (defined by this cycle having taken place properly the night before) that allows the body to accurately assess its energetic status, as in: do I have too much fat, and do I need to bother eating more food?

From what we now know about sleep, I'd say that if you aren't getting enough, all bets are off. And off for far more than weight regulation.

Sounds simple, but it's not. People will, I've found, give up ever eating a gram of carbohydrate ever again WAY before they'd give up staying up late.

You are assuming your experience is the standard but it really isn't. Not everyone finds extremely low carb to be a huge energy boost (even after carb withdrawl) and not everyone finds it alone is effective enough to control appetite to normalize weight to thinness. More carbs and conscious notation and control of energy intake are useful tools to some people and it doesn't necessarily imply disordered behavior. I look at it like this. Something is disordered when it is causing a problem in your life. If controlling energy isn't causing any problem emotionally or physically, if it is just a tool the person uses to shape their body the way they want it to look, how is that a disorder?

The tool is broken, or always was. Emotional investment in a broken tool might be a disorder, because I'd like to modify your definition of "disorder", with your approval: Something is disordered when it is causing a problem in your life, whether you know about it or not.

Not enough sleep will cause every single low-carb dieting symptom you described. Do I have to point out that a lack of energy and the inability to regulate your intake of energy might be related? We could name a dozen effects of Not Enough Sleep on weight control.

One, briefly. If you're getting enough sleep, prolactin is expressed at night. Prolactin has to be expressed every day in order for you to live, so if it is suppressed at night through bad sleep, it must be expressed during the day. Prolactin suppresses leptin, for instance, and if you don't know anything about leptin, read up as to why you absolutely want this great stuff coursing through your veins all day long.

So I'm sorry to say that if you're doing low-carb dieting right, then very probably you're going to have to look outside your diet for answers to lingering questions. Unfortunately, altering some of these other areas of life makes lowering the carbohydrate content of your diet look like a walk in the park. But too quickly we default to psychological answers to our problematic questions, while we totally ignore that these problems are physical, created and solved in the physical realm.

Being very accustomed to hearing that us chubby folks must simply eat less or exercise more, dieters not only presume that this is true, but that any further enlightenment in weight control must be a variation on this theme. Atkins revealing right up front that you don't have to count calories on his diet probably kills the possibility of most people trying the diet or denouncing it as quackery. These are the people so shocked by our fatloss that they secretly suspect that we had our stomachs stapled.

Naturally, after they check our tummies for scars, they might try the diet, assuming that Atkins is just some elaborate calorie-counting scheme disguised as a revolution. It's not hard to envision that some of these diehard calorie theorists would need to tell themselves this in order to even bother with Atkins. Even those testing Atkins at the clinical level, claiming that the diet REALLY works because dieters decrease their intake of calories without counting them, seem baffled as to why this is so, revealing that they haven't been digging too deeply into the material available at the corner bookstore, much less the literature of their own profession.

For instance, I don't think I've ever seen calorie theorists much discuss the food eaten that never gets used as energy. I think Atkins explains this quite well in the first chapter of his book.

It's pretty easy to say that no harm will come to those who count calories. Because as much talk there is here to the contrary (with exceptions), dieting is goal-oriented rather than process-oriented. This forum prides itself in over a million pounds lost by members, no matter how truthful the number might be. The stats in each profile were recently constricted to numbers, in pounds. To participate here in honesty almost REQUIRES a weight goal, and at the very least, a scale. "Weight" is the goal.

There are other goals. A certain size of pants. A certain level of health. A certain number of days on induction or days on the diet or days without a cheat. Sadly, another popular goal is a certain number of calories.

All of these goals betray the oft-stated axiom that low-carb is the healthiest way to feed your body. (Many here don't even say this, I realize.) If low-carb is best, why wouldn't all of your dreams (and goals) come true without ever dreaming them (or setting them as goals)?

So quickly, we respond by setting another goal. The thinking goes that if one goal isn't working (usually measured in time), then adding another goal on top of it will do the trick. The If-Something-Isn't-Working-Do-It-More Syndrome. Did we ever think that perhaps the goal is what's messing us up (physically and psychologically) in the first place?

Access to less energy than what the body (and not your goal) wants brings to bear effects that we would much rather have nothing to with. Yes, if you count calories you may lose weight, but a number of problems of definition arise, in addition to those side effects.

For instance, you don't want to "lose weight", you want to lose fat. While this is semantics, and everybody knows it, still "weight" is the only goal. Some of us are lucky enough to have a bodyfat percentage goal, which is a far more accurate measure of all the things we want. The semantic difference is less powerful than we claim, since most of the members here talk about losing "weight", whether it be fat cells, muscle cells, bone cells or brain cells. If you were told that you were losing brain weight, you might move a lot faster to ditch the scale and find out how your body works, instead.

Another for instance, what are the effects of lowering your energy intake below what your body wants? Don't know? I assure you, it's not pretty. Less food equals panic at the cellular level. And the least of your worries is that your body desperately tries to conserve energy in the form of bodyfat when food is scarce, making weightloss harder than it has to be.

If you aren't fully versed on the effects of less energy on the processes of the body, I suggest you get enough to eat based on something other than less-than-fully-versed ideas. This includes calorie counting or any other number.

And if your body isn't setting the number, you've got more work to do.

Lisa N

Sun, Jun-05-05, 16:59

This definition conveniently excludes most of the members of this site. Again, we would love to have some proof that our eating isn't disordered. We can define anyone's eating into or out of an eating disorder. Rhetorically: Is limiting the amount of carbohydrate in the diet an eating disorder? Is dieting an eating disorder?

I understand that you're defining disorder by the degree of harm that comes to the eater in question, and you and most members of the forum see no harm in Fitdaying and making general mental notes as to the amount of food they are eating. No one ever died of Fitday.

I see. So you are plugging in your own definition of eating disorder and running with it. Got it. But just for reference, here are some actual definitions of what is considered an eating disorder:
http://www.something-fishy.org/whatarethey/edordiet.php
http://www.answers.com/topic/eating-disorder
http://www.athealth.com/consumer/disorders/NIH_eatdis.html

kwikdriver

Sun, Jun-05-05, 17:04

Dodger

Sun, Jun-05-05, 20:39

Everyone who pays attention to what they eat counts calories in one way or another. Some people do it intuitively, some people do it with scales, some people do it by refusing to eat certain kinds of foods because they know it will make them eat too much. Counting calories is about control; period. If you try to control what you eat, you are counting calories, whatever name you call it -- or don't call it.

I think you are mis-using the term 'counting calories'. It means just what the two words state. You count (add up) the energy value (calories) of the food. I control what I eat, but I have not idea of what the calorie count is.

I am fixing supper now. It's two chicken thighs (with skin and bones, I don't eat he bones), pan fried in grease, butter and olive oil, salted, peppered and garlic powdered. A salad plate of mixed vegetables (broccolli, cauliflower, carrots, summer squash) with butter and cheese over them. Later for dessert I may have (if I am still hungry) a bowl of mixed berries with some walnuts. I have absolutely no idea of how many calories are in the meal.

I did 'control' what I am eating by not including any sugars or starches or other high-carb foods or trans-fats, but I certainly did not count calories.

kwikdriver

Sun, Jun-05-05, 20:55

I think you are mis-using the term 'counting calories'. It means just what the two words state. You count (add up) the energy value (calories) of the food. I control what I eat, but I have not idea of what the calorie count is.

I am fixing supper now. It's two chicken thighs (with skin and bones, I don't eat he bones), pan fried in grease, butter and olive oil, salted, peppered and garlic powdered. A salad plate of mixed vegetables (broccolli, cauliflower, carrots, summer squash) with butter and cheese over them. Later for dessert I may have (if I am still hungry) a bowl of mixed berries with some walnuts. I have absolutely no idea of how many calories are in the meal.

You know the effect of the meal. You know you won't gain weight as a result of eating it, and the rest of the food you've eaten today, probably because you've eaten it, or something close to it, many times before. Basically, you've been counting calories by custom and intuition, and monitoring their effects. You don't need Fitday or anything else to do it.

There's a member here who "counts calories" by paying attention to what he eats, and weighing himself. If he fails to lose weight, he reduces what he eats. He doesn't directly "count calories" by putting it into some program, but it's essentially the same thing as I contend you're doing, except he's doing it consciously.

Wyvrn

Mon, Jun-06-05, 10:48

kwikdriver

Mon, Jun-06-05, 11:31

I'm with Dodger on this one. Listening to your body and being intuitively guided in food/portion choices is the antithesis of calorie counting. Calorie counting can become an unhealthy obsession in the same way that trying to "achieve" a very low number on the scale is, because a healthy diet cannot be reduced to a number. I limit how much I eat relative to my hunger which can vary widely from day to day, not relative to some set limit of calories.

Judging something, like calorie counting, by a worst case scenario is kind of misleading, and misses the point anyway. But...

What if your "intuition" tells you you should be at a much lower (or higher) weight than you should be? Or is intuition always flawless, while calorie counting is dangerous? Because that's the implication of your statement. What if you can't judge how much you are eating except by rigorously counting calories? This is the case for many, many people, I might add, especially the overweight, who, studies consistently show, tend grossly to underestimate how much they eat.

Keep in mind the context of this: someone is making the absolute claim that calorie counting is an eating disorder. Not calorie counting to excess, or calorie counting to the point where it becomes harmful, but the act itself. Since, as I stated, everyone who pays attention to what they eat is doing so with an eye towards controlling their calories, there must be a whole lot of people with eating disorders on this site. Trying to take things off on a tangent and pointing to worst case scenarios (overlooking the fact that all methods of calorie control have worst case scenarios), isn't helping to establish the truth or falseness of the statement, "Calorie counting is an eating disorder."