Article on Calories...(Op Ed, not Research article)

[Frederick]

http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html

[Nancy LC]

Hmmm... I wonder how difficult it is to get into one of those calorie metabolism chamber things.

[eepobee]

well of course calories count. but there are other factors to consider, and i think anthony, uncharacteristically, seems to forget these factors.

while calories count, the macronutrient source of those calories is important. not only is a low-carb diet more satiating, but it also raises energy output without the addition of extra exercise. hasn't anthony heard of protein turnover or the greater thermogenic effect of low-carb diets? in other words, a calorie is not a calorie (in terms of energy intake and use) and low-carb diets increase energy output because the calories consumed are less effeciently utilized than those consumed on a high-carb/low-fat diet. therefore, instead of comparing apples and oranges (1000 calorie below basal metabolism high-carb diet to a 1000 calorie above basal metabolism low-carb diet), as anthony recommends, we should compare high-carb to low-carb isocaloric diets that meet basal metabolic requirements and see if one creates greater weight loss or gain. i think we all know what the outcome will be.

so, calories do count but they aren't equal. i think anthony was trying get a point across and in doing so has overstated his case.

[eepobee]

oh, and i also forgot that continued consumption of a high-carb diet often leads to hyperinsulinemia, which puts the body into a fat-building, or energy-storing, state, as opposed to a muscle-sparing, fat-burning, state.

[mcsblues]

well of course calories count. but there are other factors to consider, and i think anthony, uncharacteristically, seems to forget these factors.

while calories count, the macronutrient source of those calories is important. not only is a low-carb diet more satiating, but it also raises energy output without the addition of extra exercise. hasn't anthony heard of protein turnover or the greater thermogenic effect of low-carb diets? in other words, a calorie is not a calorie (in terms of energy intake and use) and low-carb diets increase energy output because the calories consumed are less effeciently utilized than those consumed on a high-carb/low-fat diet. therefore, instead of comparing apples and oranges (1000 calorie below basal metabolism high-carb diet to a 1000 calorie above basal metabolism low-carb diet), as anthony recommends, we should compare high-carb to low-carb isocaloric diets that meet basal metabolic requirements and see if one creates greater weight loss or gain. i think we all know what the outcome will be.

so, calories do count but they aren't equal. i think anthony was trying get a point across and in doing so has overstated his case.

oh, and i also forgot that continued consumption of a high-carb diet often leads to hyperinsulinemia, which puts the body into a fat-building, or energy-storing, state, as opposed to a muscle-sparing, fat-burning, state.

As Anthony has taken the time to praise my modest contribution to this debate (a quite unsolicited but welcome comment I can assure you!:)) perhaps I can say something on his behalf?

You don't have to look very far into his excellent and extensive web site which is certainly one of the best researched and referenced on the web in strong support of a controlled carb way of life, to realise Anthony Colpo is well aware of the differing effects which result from changing the macronutrient ratios of dietary intake. Perhaps this example (one of many) will convince you;

http://www.theomnivore.com/August_2_2004_newsletter.html ("A calorie is NOT a calorie")

His latest newsletter does not address these issues because it was specifically addressed to a question about whether calories should count on a low carb diet ... at all.

All he is saying (I think) is that while on a low carb diet you may not need to count calories (as Atkins says) - because calorie intake will likely drop due to the greater satiety of eating in this way - that is NOT to say calories are irrelevant, and a large part of the successful weight loss phase of low carb is this as a result of this effect. This is not a criticism, far from it - in fact you can only imagine how much money a pharmaceutical company would make if they produced a pill which would make you eat less without hunger (as low carb does of course, without drugs).

If you take the trouble to read the post of mine to which he refers, you will note that I went on to make the point that for many on low carb this calorie/portion size adjustment is a two stage process - the first being the initial 'automatic' reduction brought about by appetite suppression effects of the diet itself. The second, is where many people struggle a bit (including me) because it is a behavioral change which is made more on the basis of logic rather than hunger reduction - and this is the realisation that if you have lost a substantial amount of weight your lowered BMR (as a result of not carrying around that extra weight 24/7) requires a further increase in exercise or reduction in calories/portion size (or both) to compensate.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[eepobee]

malcolm, i did read your post and i agree. i too am a big fan of anthony's and was a little surprized that he went so far to point out the balancing of energy input/output and forgot to mention that low-carb diets increase energy output without added exercise. it probably was an oversight, but i got the sense he was trying too hard to make his point and left out some of the pertinent factors, perhaps in an attempt to bolster his agrument.

in reading the thread that started this topic, i felt that most of those who posted said that they didn't need to worry about calories (not that they're irrelevant), because low-carb diets usually lead to spontaneous reductions in caloric intake.

[eepobee]

ok, i've pinpointed the issue i have with anthony's defense of counting calories:
If anyone out there believes that the low-carb diet, providing an excess of calories, will somehow produce greater weight loss than the calorie-restricted low-fat diet, then they are not just misguided, but downright deluded!
let's say my bmr is 2000 calories. if i ate an "excess" of calories on a low-carb diet (let's say, 2100 calories), i absolutely believe that i could lose more weight than if i ate a 1900-calorie low-fat diet. not only do i believe it, but there has been quite a bit of research that would support such a claim.

if anthony had looked at the feinman and fine study that he referenced in the link you provided, he would have seen that participants in kekwick's study who consumed a hypocaloric, high-carb diet (1000kcal, 90% CHO) lost NO weight, whereas participants on hypocaloric, high-fat and high-protein diets lost .26kg and .46kg per day respectively. also, participants in sondike's study who consumed a 1100-calorie 56/12/32 (CHO/fat/protein) diet lost only 4.1kg over 12 weeks, but those on a 1830-calorie 8/60/32 diet lost 9.9kg over the same period.

the evidence seems pretty clear. but what do i know, i'm misguided and deluded.

[Dodger]

One of the problems with the calorie counting philosophy of weight loss is that a calorie is a unit of energy, not mass. While a pound of fat contains approximately 3500 Calories of energy, to use 3500 Calories as a measure of weight gain or loss is misleading. On low carb, some of the energy contained in the fat is in the form of ketones. These may be eliminated from the body without being used for energy.

How about if I eat 3500 Calories worth of protein? While a gram of protein may contain 4 Calories of energy, the body prefers to use protein for building muscle and other tissues and is inefficient in extacting energy from it. For instance here is a quote (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/104/15/1869)from The Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism of the American Heart Association protein intake above the required amount is inefficiently used by the body and imposes the additional burdens of metabolizing and excreting excess waste products

Another problem with calorie counting is the huge unknown of energy expenditure. Depending upon what source I use, I can get up to a 50% difference in how many calories that my body allegedly burns every day. Unless I know accurately how many calories my body burns each day, it is meaningless to count all calories in the food that I eat.

Even if I could accurately know how many calories went into my mouth and how many calories I used, I would still have to know how many calories passed thorough my body as fecal material. That is something that I am not going to count!

[eepobee]

you're right dodger, it is next to impossible to accurately measure exactly what your body burns or excretes on any particular day. even if we keep our energy expenditures identical, there are going to be "hidden" losses of energy and mass that vary due to the macronutrient content of our diets and fecal matter, sweat, urine, etc.

[Frederick]

let's say my bmr is 2000 calories. if i ate an "excess" of calories on a low-carb diet (let's say, 2100 calories), i absolutely believe that i could lose more weight than if i ate a 1900-calorie low-fat diet. not only do i believe it, but there has been quite a bit of research that would support such a claim.

I think what Anthony meant by that statement is that if your energy output is, say, 2,000 calories, then you *must* eat less than 2,000 calories (your total energy expenditure) in order for weight loss to incur, irrespective of whether the 2,000 calories are made up of low or high carb.

That even with a low carb diet, it is impossible to lose weight by taking in 3,000 calories of low carb fare while only using 2,000.

If you were to lose weight on 2,000 calories, then it must mean you are expending more than 2,000 per day. In that case, I think we'd all agree a low carb eating regimen would be more effective than a high carb one.

For instance, let's say I use 2,000 cals per day. If I eat low carb of 1,800 cals per day, I'd lose more weight than if I had eaten the same amound on high carbs, right? However, let us assume I chose to eat 3,000 cals in low carb? What's the difference then? I'll gain less weight than if I had eaten high carbs, but I would gain nonetheless since I'm taking in far more than I'm expending.

[eepobee]

I think what Anthony meant by that statement is that if your energy output is, say, 2,000 calories, then you *must* eat less than 2,000 calories (your total energy expenditure) in order for weight loss to incur, irrespective of whether the 2,000 calories are made up of low or high carb.ok, but what do we mean by energy output? does energy output include the extra energy costs of consuming a low-carb diet? if so, than yes, you and he are right. but he seemed to imply that the only way to raise energy output is to exercise more, which i don't agree with.

[Nancy LC]

Depending upon what source I use, I can get up to a 50% difference in how many calories that my body allegedly burns every day.

How do you figure that? I've seen research that shows the calorie loss in ketosis is pretty inconsequential.

I'd love to know which macronutrient I can eat and waste 50% of because so far it isn't been carbs, fat or protein.

[mcsblues]

Perhaps not deluded, but certainly nit picking!

As I am sure you are aware being a "big fan" of Anthony's site, you were most likely alerted to studies such as referenced by Richard Feinman, showing the relative inefficency of the macronutrient ratio of a typical low carb diet ... by Anthony himself! (perhaps amongst other sources). That is not the issue here, as the sentence following the one you quoted points out;
In fact, if anyone--under carefully controlled conditions--can demonstrate weight loss on a low-carbohydrate diet (or any other diet) by ingesting more calories than they expend, then I'll gladly rollerblade naked down Chapel Street ...
I think you will agree that none of the quoted of the studies indicate that this has occurred.

Anthony also agrees that for most people (although certainly not all) "low-carb diets usually lead to spontaneous reductions in caloric intake". But the point is that this reduction, if it occurs, may not be sufficient for dieters to reach their goal weight given the inevitable drop in BMR that substantial weight loss dictates. And that is why anyone who claims they no longer need have any concern about the amount they eat, because Atkins (or anyone else) says so, may well be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[Dodger]

How do you figure that? I've seen research that shows the calorie loss in ketosis is pretty inconsequential.

I'd love to know which macronutrient I can eat and waste 50% of because so far it isn't been carbs, fat or protein.Nancy,
I was referring to the various charts and equtions used to determine basel metabolism and exercise caloric expenditure. As far as macronutients that waste 50%, there is always fiber, which wastes 100%.

[Nancy LC]

I found that I did, and do, have that reduction in appetite following low carb. I think it is a side-effect of ketosis, and lack of insulin wreaking havoc with blood sugar. However, it seems like it gets less over time. Your body adjusts to the change and the appetite can come back quite nicely.

Nancy,
I was referring to the various charts and equtions used to determine basel metabolism and exercise caloric expenditure. As far as macronutients that waste 50%, there is always fiber, which wastes 100%.

Whoops! Sorry, misread that.

[eepobee]

maybe i'm guilty of pedantry, malcolm, but then so is anthony. and if it's all the same to you, i'd prefer to keep this exchange cordial. :)

as far as the debate goes, how do you define energy expenditure? do you include the costs of protein turnover, thermogenesis, etc. (i.e. the cost of eating an lc diet). if you don't, than i disagree with what you an anthony are claiming. i think you can lose weight by consuming more calories than you expend, if you don't account for those "lost" calories and other added losses, as dodger mentioned. and although none of the studies quoted indicate that this has happened, none indicate that it hasn't happened either. i know i've read of weight losses occurring at high calorie intakes, i'll have to do some searching.

[mcsblues]

maybe i'm guilty of pedantry, malcolm, but then so is anthony. and if it's all the same to you, i'd prefer to keep this exchange cordial. :)

as far as the debate goes, how do you define energy expenditure? do you include the costs of protein turnover, thermogenesis, etc. (i.e. the cost of eating an lc diet). if you don't, than i disagree with what you an anthony are claiming. i think you can lose weight by consuming more calories than you expend, if you don't account for those "lost" calories and other added losses, as dodger mentioned. and although none of the studies quoted indicate that this has happened, none indicate that it hasn't happened either. i know i've read of weight losses occurring at high calorie intakes, i'll have to do some searching.
I wasn't aware anyone had overstepped the 'cordial' boundary, but if I did so unintentionally i apologise.

You seem to feel that Anthony should reiterate all the many advantages of low carb (to which he alludes in this piece) in every article he writes.

All I have tried to point out to you is that this newsletter (which is directed at the low carb 'faithful' anyway) simply addresses the common conception that as long as you eat low or very low carbs, calories, portion control, energy intake - call it what you like - is no longer something 'we' have to concern ourselves with. I agree with Anthony that this is certainly not the case, and is an issue that is worthy of discussion on its own, in his newsletter, here, or anywhere else.

As for the definition of energy expenditure, of course in includes all factors and some of those relate to macronutrient ratio - noone is arguing that point! ;), and as others have suggested to you, its almost impossible to measure on a day to day basis anyway. So that gets us right back to balancing energy intake with whatever expenditure we each require - so clearly how much we eat and how much we exercise are as relevant to low carbers as to anyone else - which I think you will concede, is Anthony's point.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[eepobee]

well, i can see we're not going to agree. i don't think how much we eat and exercise is as important as it is to someone eating a high-carb/low-fat diet. as kekwick's study shows, eating 1000 calories a day on a 90% carb diet led to NO lost weight. clearly, those on high-carb diets are fighting an uphill battle.

anthony contended that a high-carb diet that was 1000 calories below bmr would lead to more weight loss than a low-carb diet 1000 calories above. it's possible that an lc diet that exceeds bmr by 1000 would lead to weight gain, but you'd be forcing yourself to eat that much. i do believe that an vlck diet that exceeded bmr by 200-300 calories would lead to some weight loss, which beats NO weight loss.

You seem to feel that Anthony should reiterate all the many advantages of low carb (to which he alludes in this piece) in every article he writes.no. never said any such thing. but if he's going to discuss calorie balance he needs to consider all the factors involved, which he didn't.

[Nancy LC]

kekwick's study shows, eating 1000 calories a day on a 90% carb diet led to NO lost weight.

I just have a hard time believing this one, unless someone has a huge metabolic issue, like a malfunctioning thyroid gland, you'll lose weight on 1000 calories a day regardless of the macronutrient content. Well, who knows, maybe you retain so much fluid that it doesn't result in weight loss over the short term, but otherwise, I think there must be something wrong.

When my thryoid was nuked and the levels of hormones in my blood stream had fallen off to such a level that I was severely hypothyroid, I couldn't lose on 1200 calories a day and an hour of exercise. That was a diet where I ate food that was delivered to me and completely portion controlled.

But when things were totally normal, or closer to normal, I could lose on 1200 calories. And this was back in the midst of the low-fat craze.

[TBoneMitch]

Had to chip in concerning the amount of energy lost by elimination of unused ketones (in the sweat, urine, etc).

First, this effect was shown to be trivial (maybe a max of 20 calories per day).

This loss is also transient and only occurs at the beginning of a LC diet.

It fades over time (no matter how low the carb intake) because the body adapts to use ketones as energy. BTW, ketones are the body's preferred energy source.

After about 3 months on very low carb, blood ketones may be quite high, but there are not going to be any spilled over in the urine and sweat because the body can make use of them very efficiently as an energy source.

It would have been a weird evolutionary twist that the body should eliminate any part of its preferred energy source for no reason.

[Abd]

Something, perhaps a burst of testosterone, has convinced Mr. Colpo to make statements that probably he knows are false, were he to be a little more careful. From the URL that began this thread:


For anyone who honestly believes that carbohydrate intake, rather than overall calorie intake, is the deciding factor in weight loss, I issue the following challenge:


This starts with a bit of a straw man. There are *many* factors in weight loss. "Calorie intake," without further qualification, is certainly not a "deciding factor." It seems to be forgotten what calories are.

When we say that such and such a food "has" so many calories, we mean that, if we burn the food (literally, perhaps in a bomb calorimiter, that is, we oxidize it), it will generate so many kilocalories in heat. Which is shortened to "calorie" in popular usage.

But the body is not a bomb calorimiter. We do not oxidize every oxidizable substance in the food we eat. In particular, human beings can't digest cellulose, i.e., fiber. Cows can do it, which is why you can fatten a cow by feeding it straw. You could feed a human being straw all day long and.... well, it is not a pleasant prospect, is it?

Take a trip down to your local university/hospital metabolic ward, and have them determine your 24-hour caloric output. Next, have a dietitian design a high-carb, low-fat diet that supplies 1,000 calories below your 24-energy expenditure. Then, maintaining the exact same level of activity that you expended in the calorie chamber, proceed to follow this diet religiously for the next four weeks.

He is making the point that if you don't consume enough metabolizable food to provide the energy you expend, you will lose weight, because your body will consume its stores, whether those be fat or muscle. I don't think there is any controversy about this: but, easily overlooked, such a diet will leave you ravenously hungry; it's extremely difficult to follow a diet like that for an extended period of time.

At the end of this period, go back to the hospital, have your weight measured, and have your caloric output reassessed.

The way this test was designed, it would be physically impossible to follow the diet and not lose weight. (It would be *hard* to follow the diet, perhaps, but that is a different issue.)

After this is done, return to your dietitian's office, but this time ask him/her to draw up a daily menu plan for a low-carbohydrate diet that provides 1,000 calories MORE than your new 24-hour caloric output.

I'm going to add one little extra condition here. The dietician knows who Mr. Colpo is, wants to embarass him, and is free to design the diet in such a manner as to accomplish this.

Again, follow this low-carb diet to the letter for the next four weeks. Don't forget to also weigh yourself at the end of this four week period.

The resultant weight loss/gain occurring after each period should quickly clarify the respective weight loss roles of calories and carbohydrates!

Actually, not. We don't count fiber when counting carbs, but fiber burns nicely, and, unless some adjustment is made for that, the calories that come from fiber have no effect of the kind being described. You won't gain weight by eating fiber.

Plus there is, of course, in addition, the famous metabolic advantage: the body is not as efficient burning ketones as it is in burning digestible carbs.

So a diet could be designed that would match the low-calorie diet in terms of weight loss. It might also be difficult to follow, but I haven't actually looked at how much fiber one would have to consume. But, theoretically, at least, it could be done.

If anyone out there believes that the low-carb diet, providing an excess of calories, will somehow produce greater weight loss than the calorie-restricted low-fat diet, then they are not just misguided, but downright deluded!

Well, I believe that, with a number of caveats. First of all, "the low carb diet" is not nearly specific enough. What kind of low carb diet? Secondly, my goal is not the size of weight loss, such as, "amazing weight loss in four weeks!", but, rather, a way of eating that maximizes my health, and which includes weight loss. I don't need to lose more weight than I've already lost, so my goal is simply to not gain the weight back. So "greater weight loss," I would define as, starting from an overweight position, the net loss in weight after a lapse of time. Say, five years. That low calorie diet is impossible to follow for five years! But low carb diets, properly designed, can be followed indefinitely. So, yes, the weight loss, as I have defined it, would be greater with the low carb diet. Unless the dieter really was forced to follow that low calorie diet and died as a result.

In fact, if anyone--under carefully controlled conditions--can demonstrate weight loss on a low-carbohydrate diet (or any other diet) by ingesting more calories than they expend, then I'll gladly rollerblade naked down Chapel Street (a very popular shopping/nightlife strip here in Melbourne) on a busy Saturday afternoon. Damn, to maximize the humiliation factor, I'll even stop at the heavily-patronized KFC and order one of their family meal combos, complete with super-sized fries and soda, gulp down the whole lot whilst sitting on the pavement outside, then continue on my merry way!

Before you all start frantically reaching for your camcorders, be aware that I won't need to honor this bet anytime soon. To lose weight whilst consuming more energy that what one expends is a physiological impossibility.

I've seen nutritionists make this statement quite a few times. It is, quite simply, false. To make it clear why it is false, I'll qualify the statement to make it true.

Assuming normal metabolism, to lose weight while consuming food containing digestible calories more than the body utilizes or excretes is a physiological impossibility.

We don't consume "energy," per se. We consume foods which contain, among other things, fuels. Some of the fuel we burn, some we excrete, and some we may store. What we store adds weight.

I don't think it is true that "calories don't count." But counting calories, as such, is probably counting the wrong thing. The most readily utilizable fuel that we can consume is carbohydrates. By counting net carbs, we are counting the quick fuel that we consume. By consuming less of that fuel than we need for the work we do (I'm using "work" to include all the metabolic processes), we force the body to burn other fuels, and on an Atkins diet, the other fuel is fat.

It is quite possible that if one added those 1000 calories as fat in the diet, in addition to the fat added to replace the carbohydrates taken out of the diet, that one would gain weight. But it is very difficult to eat that much fat, I think. Fat sates. So, while it may not be true that "calories don't count," it *may* be true that it is unnecessary to count calories, and *this* is the claim that Atkins made.

I do know that, since I went on the Atkins diet, I have deliberately eaten my fill of butter, heavy cream, chicken skin, fatty meat, and the like. And I have not gained weight, indeed I lost a fair amount of weight doing this. I don't count calories. In fact, I don't even count carbs precisely, I just have an idea of how many net carbs there are in the foods I eat, and I normally avoid high-carb foods and instead eat full-fat dairy products, meat, fish, salad greens, vegetables, blueberries and sometimes raspberries.

[LC FP]

Expanding on your data, a little:

Barry Groves, the Eat Fat, Get Thin guy, summarizes his thoughts on this topic at the Red Flags site below:

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/Atkins_diet/2004_feb23.html

He lists some old studies, including Kekwick's (wonder why they don't repeat these?)

In 1931, Drs D. M. Lyon and D. M. Dunlop of the Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, conducted a controlled dietary trial using a wide variety of low‑ and high‑calorie diets. [3] On the low‑calorie diets, average losses were found to depend on the carbohydrate content of the diet. Those on the low-fat, high-carb diet lost an average 49g per day, while those on a low-carb, high-fat diet lost 205g per day – over four times as much. Increasing calories also made weight loss more easy: The average weight loss for those on the low‑calorie diets was 145 grams per day but those on the high-calorie diets lost more, at 157 grams per day. In other words, the less carbohydrate was eaten, the more weight was lost; and the more calories eaten, the greater the weight loss.

In 1944, Dr Blake F. Donaldson carried out a famous experiment at the New York Hospital. Very overweight patients were put on high‑fat, low‑carbohydrate diets, encouraged to eat as much as they wanted – and lost weight.

After World War II, the E. I. du Pont de Nemours chemical company of America undertook a slimming program with some of its overweight executives. They were allowed to eat all the untrimmed meat they wanted, with only carbohydrates withheld. The results were spectacular. On the high‑calorie diet, they each lost an average 10 kg (22 lb) in three months, on energy intakes averaging 3,000 calories a day.

In 1956 Professor Alan Kekwick and Dr Gaston Pawan conducted clinical tests of Banting's diet at the Middlesex Hospital in London. [5] Four 1,000‑calorie diets were formulated: ninety per cent carbohydrate; ninety per cent protein; ninety per cent fat; and a normal mixed diet. It became obvious that what a person's diet contained was far more important than the number of calories it contained. Subjects on the high‑fat diet lost much more weight than those on the others, while several on the high-carbohydrate diet actually put weight on. In further tests, calorie intakes were increased to 2,600 by increasing the amounts of fat and protein, while at the same time the amount of carbohydrate was reduced. This time patients lost weight.


He also comes up with some interesting calorie equivalents for fats and carbs.


The second Golden Rule of orthodoxy is: ‘A calorie is a calorie is a calorie' – no matter where it comes from. This rule says that no matter what you eat, if you eat more calories than you use, you'll gain weight.

The figure often used is that one kilogram of body fat represents about 3500 calories. But according to the United States Department Of Health, Education and Welfare: [2]

‘On a high-fat diet, 4703 to 8471 excess calories were required for each kilogram of added weight. On a low fat VLCD [very low calorie diet], replacing fat calories with 8g/day of equivalent carbohydrate calories reduced weight loss by 1.68kg, corresponding to 3300 calories of carbohydrate/kilogram, possibly 2500 calories per kilogram for carbohydrate alone.'

Hey, wait a minute, read that again!

What they are saying is that it takes 4,700 to 8,470 excess calories of fat to add a kilogram of weight, yet it takes only 2,500 to 3,300 calories of carbohydrate to add the same amount. So ‘a calorie is a calorie is a calorie' is not so meaningful after all: a carbohydrate calorie is obviously much more fattening than a fat calorie.


I suspect 4700 to 8470 calories of fat would weigh about the same as 2500 to 3300 calories of carb. Must be a coincidence.

[LC FP]

I don't think it is true that "calories don't count." But counting calories, as such, is probably counting the wrong thing. The most readily utilizable fuel that we can consume is carbohydrates. By counting net carbs, we are counting the quick fuel that we consume. By consuming less of that fuel than we need for the work we do (I'm using "work" to include all the metabolic processes), we force the body to burn other fuels, and on an Atkins diet, the other fuel is fat.

Right on!!

[Abd]

I just wanted to add this note to emphasize that I'm not criticizing Mr. Colpo's work in general, at least not here. Just his error in leaning on the common error: "A calorie is a calorie," which very clearly implies that what *kind* of fuel is involved does not matter. That slogan is used over and over by nutritionists arguing against low-carb diets. (That and the apparent myth that saturated fats such as butter will clog your arteries, so it is better for heart health to eat a low-fat diet. The opposite is probably true.)

And the argument that increasing the caloric content of food will necessarily reduce weight lost or increase weight gained, on the basis that this is a physical impossibility is likewise a serious error; in fact, an article was published in a major nutrition journal devoted entirely to debunking this bad science.

The counterexample is blindingly obvious: fiber has caloric content, yet you can consume, apparently, all the fiber you want, without consuming *effective* calories.

Mr. Colpo is apparently arguing against the opposite error, the idea that it does not matter *at all* how many calories you consume. It probably does matter. But the consumption of net carbohydrate grams apparently is correlated with weight loss much better than caloric content.

My suspicion is that if, given a controlled-carb diet, in the low range, you increase fat calories (holding protein constant), you would see lower weight loss in a normal individual. In fact, this is almost certain, as can be seen by the opposite thought experiment:

Hold protein and carb content of a diet constant, but lower fat content. If the protein and carb components are not adequate to sustain the metabolic processes in the individual, there is a level of fat content at which weight loss is guaranteed. There *may* be a range within which increasing the fat has little effect on weight loss, but there is a level of fat consumption (in this precisely-controlled diet) where there is enough fat that the body begins to store at least some of it. It appears that the conversion of fat calories into stored fat calories is quite inefficient. And because fat is sating, an ad libitem diet will not normally (under the conditions which Americans mostly live under) contain enough fat to maintain weight, if the base weight is high enough. People on low-carb diets do seem to plateau at a certain weight; to go below that weight probably requires caloric limitation. But that weight is, almost by definition, the person's healthy weight. Losing beyond that point may not be healthy at all.

But if a person has a disordered appetite or deliberately gorges on fat (not merely consuming more than society says is too much, but actually neglecting the normal warnings of fullness and loss of appetite), then weight gain is certainly possible.

So, to summarize, it is not normally necessary to count calories to lose weight, if one's weight is unhealthily high. Counting carbs or otherwise maintaining net carb intake in the Atkins weight loss range seems to be quite sufficient. But this does not mean that calories are completely irrelevant, just that *normally* counting calories is not necessary for weight loss.

On the other hand, if one is on a low-carb diet, long-term, and ketone tests are positive, and one is not losing weight, then looking at caloric intake could be a good idea. Lowering the fat in the diet and substituting fiber carbs might possibly maintain satisfaction (essential in a long term nutritional plan) while producing more weight loss.

[ItsTheWooo]

Calories are the most important factor when it comes to weight loss.
Obviously true. Decepively so.

1) Calories are not all the same to our bodies.
Obviously one must use more energy than they consume to lose weight. The implication that this process is controlled exclusively by how much energy one is consuming – measured in kilocalories - is erroneous.
A calorie is simply a unit of energy. Monitors and keyboards have calories, so does everything in existence. People think of the kilocalorie as a unit of measuring food energy in particular; many are surprised to learn this is false.

The assumption is made that denying the truth of calorie theory is to deny the first law of thermodynamics. This is not true, because this assumption further assumes that if a food-source does not produce the anticipated effect (so many calorie’s worth of energy to the body) then the energy must have been spontaneously destroyed (which is not possible).
However there are other possibilities for the consumed energy.

The present model is to view everything in existence from the binary perspective of “food calories” or “nonfood calories”; meaning, it either can be used as energy and “counts” (fat, carbohydrate, protein), or it doesn’t (fiber).
It’s not true that there are only binary states of “food” and “nonfood”. The reason this is so is because it is our bodies enzymes and hormones which discriminate between food and nonfood calories, and the state of our bodies metabolic agents are highly dependant on lifestyle and diet composition.

What’s being lost in translation here with all this focus on calories, is that diet composition is a factor which affects enzymes, hormones, and thus metabolic state just as profoundly as raw calorie amount. You are doing yourself a disservice to pray to the calorie gods, without giving as much thought to diet composition.

The calorie theory, in exclusion of focus on diet and lifestyle, is very short sighted and not very effective long term. It’s seeing only one part of the picture. The calorie theory works on the assumption that all usable fuel sources have an identical effect on our body, when this is obviously false. If I eat 1000 calories of cotton candy, the effect is NOT the same as if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado, and melon. When I speak of “effect”, I mean to say it is not true my enzymatic, hormonal profile will remain the same irregardless of what I consume, and it is only how much that matters. Eating only cotton candy I will store more fat, waste more muscle, my energy levels (and thus metabolic rate) will be lower, when relatively compared to an isocaloric diet of chicken, avocado, and melon. This is because the cotton candy calories, inside my body, do things to it that chicken, avocado, and melon does not. Likewise, chicken, avocado, and melon calories do things to my body cotton candy does not. The difference is stark.

In sum:

everything has calories
those things with calories that are “food” (i.e. “counted”) and those that are not (i.e. not counted, known as “fiber”), is a discrimination determined based on our bodies hormones and enzymes.
hormones and enzymes ratios are determined, among other things, by diet composition.
therefore a calorie is not a calorie; metabolic state will not remain equal irregardless of what food stuff is consumed, which means metabolic rate (as well as body composition) is subject to change.
therefore, calorie counting is at best a crude approximation and by no mean a bible-like final word on what will happen to your body.



2) However, calories still count.
I don’t want to promote the stupid myth that calories don’t count. Nothing ticks me off more than people eating 2000 calories – but no carbs - and not understanding why they aren’t losing weight.
Focusing exclusively on diet composition – when you have specific fitness and health goals in mind – is just as foolish as focusing on calorie contents. Very few people achieve their fitness goals purely by counting carbs, because it is more than carbs which affect how much total tissue our body stores. Energy availability figures in huge, and one is doing themselves a big favor in meeting body fat reduction goals by selecting from lower fat options (in the context of carb control, of course).

Just as it is a truth that food-type effects metabolic hormones & enzymes, it is also a truth that food quanity does as well.
Sorry people but there is no one “golden ticket” to fitness. If this is your focus, it requires considering lots of variables. There is no free lunch. It is impossible to eat limitless quantities of fat and remain thin. I agree with Anthony that the low carb diet book gurus are promoting a “kitschy” hook to try to push their product, by lying to the consumer and creating the impression that one should not pay attention to calories as much as carbs.
Now some one is going to say “oh but woo I lost all the weight I wanted to by not counting calories!” Yes, it is true that to some people’s perceptions “limitless” is only enough to maintain weight. However, it is doing a disservice to those who tend toward over-eating and with more ambitious fitness goals (relative to starting point), to advise them calories don’t matter. It is irresponsible to fail to distinguish between one’s perceptions (it feels like I can eat whatever) and biological reality (that I actually CAN eat whatever). Simply because some people’s appetite is self-regulating, and their fitness goals are more natural to your body (e.g. a body weight reduction from 150 to 120 pounds), doesn’t mean that my appetite is equally self-regulating, and that my specific fitness goals are as natural to me (e.g. a body weight reduction of 350 pounds to 150 pounds). It may take me – the female with sedentary lifestyle and a history of significant obesity – a lot more conscious control to get her body where she wants it to be, because my body and natural lifestyle proclivities are such that I tend to eat more and store more fat. Eating whatever of fat isn’t going to work for me, without any control at all.

The bottom line is such. Yes high carbs and lower fat/pro carbs promote a metabolic state that is conducive to low energy, over eating, and fat building. However, food amount also plays a role. If you eat more fat and protein you put your body in a more anabolic (tissue building) state. Yes it is true that eating a healthful low carb diet means it is less likely there will be a gross imbalance between hormones, so the focus of that anabolism will be more proportionately distributed between lean tissue and fat. However you will gain fat, too, if you eat too much, even low carb. Everything we eat converts to sugar and fuels; this raises blood sugar, and insulin (which promotes anabolism although simultaneously with hormones that promote synthesis of lean-tissue so it is less likely to be fat that is created).
The obese are more anabolic than the less fat in an absolute sense; it is a myth, and exactly counter to reality, that the obese have low metabolism and no muscle, much like Anthony poins out.

In sum, the only thing that changes with carb control is the “balance” of hormones: how much the body favors energy use & fat building vs energy storage & muscle building relatively speaking. Absolute level of both is controlled primarily (but not exclusively) by net energy intake. Eating less makes the body lose tissues (fat, protein, bones, etc); eating more makes the body build more tissues (fat, protein, bones, everything).
Most people, especially obese people, will find it more common that low carb as written in the Atkins books will not take them to their ideal fitness goals. Now there’s nothing wrong with settling, but for the person who is in it just as much if not moreso for the body as they are the metabolic health improvements… it is doing a grave disservice to tell them to “up their fat”, to swallow tablespoons of oil, and other such nonsense to lose weight. It is a disservice to tell people that taking advantage of the appetite suppression of low carb & a metabolically balanced state (when overfat) will put them in “starvation mode”. None of that is effective, it’s all rubbish.
Observationally those who have done the dramatic transformations – meeting truly ambitious goals relative to start point – it is statistically much much more common for us to be calorie aware. This is not coincidence.
Again, there's nothing wrong with having a different priority set, but if your priority is weight loss, AND your goal is ambitious relative to baseline, it's very likely that Atkins as written will do it for you. You'll have to watch the cals, too.

[jmom]

2) However, calories still count.
I don’t want to promote the stupid myth that calories don’t count. Nothing ticks me off more than people eating 2000 calories – but no carbs - and not understanding why they aren’t losing weight.
Focusing exclusively on diet composition – when you have specific fitness and health goals in mind – is just as foolish as focusing on calorie contents. Very few people achieve their fitness goals purely by counting carbs, because it is more than carbs which affect how much total tissue our body stores. Energy availability figures in huge, and one is doing themselves a big favor in meeting body fat reduction goals by selecting from lower fat options (in the context of carb control, of course).

In sum, the only thing that changes with carb control is the “balance” of hormones: how much the body favors energy use & fat building vs energy storage & muscle building relatively speaking. Absolute level of both is controlled primarily (but not exclusively) by net energy intake. Eating less makes the body lose tissues (fat, protein, bones, etc); eating more makes the body build more tissues (fat, protein, bones, everything).
Most people, especially obese people, will find it more common that low carb as written in the Atkins books will not take them to their ideal fitness goals. Now there’s nothing wrong with settling, but for the person who is in it just as much if not moreso for the body as they are the metabolic health improvements… it is doing a grave disservice to tell them to “up their fat”, to swallow tablespoons of oil, and other such nonsense to lose weight. It is a disservice to tell people that taking advantage of the appetite suppression of low carb & a metabolically balanced state (when overfat) will put them in “starvation mode”. None of that is effective, it’s all rubbish.
Observationally those who have done the dramatic transformations – meeting truly ambitious goals relative to start point – it is statistically much much more common for us to be calorie aware. This is not coincidence.
Again, there's nothing wrong with having a different priority set, but if your priority is weight loss, AND your goal is ambitious relative to baseline, it's very likely that Atkins as written will do it for you. You'll have to watch the cals, too.


I absolutely agree with you. When I first started Atkins, I followed it "by the book." I successfully went from 210 to 170 in about 7 months without much effort. The weight loss came to a screeching halt with no change in my eating habits. I continued under the supposition that I could just wait it out and eventually start moving downward again. I stayed very low carb and never once strayed from the official formula. I walked an average of 1.5 hrs daily in the summer and about 30 min in the winter on the treadmill (I hate the treadmill)...The Palm program I use to track carbs will also show calories and I was averaging about 1800. So, over the next year, I gradually gained back about 10 lbs on a "strict" Atkins diet. I'm a slow learner I guess...I finally decided I'd have to try something new so stayed low carb but cut the calories back to 1000-1200. I"m now back to losing a couple lbs a week and praying it continues so I don't have to find plan C.

At least for me, the calorie count is obviously an integral part of the picture. I just didn't realize it until my body lost enough weight that it balanced out with what I was consuming and I no longer had the calorie defiicit to continue weight loss.

[zedgirl]

This has been a great thread and needs to be made a sticky or something.

I’ve accepted for a long time that a calorie isn’t a calorie but that calories do count but even after everything I’ve read I still can’t get my head around one concept :confused: . Does knowing your BMR make weight loss quantifiable? In a nutshell:

If I’ve had my BMR tested and I know it’s 1500 calories per day, is it scientifically possible for me to lose weight on a low-carb-higher-than-1500 calories-a-day diet (without exercise)?

[Nancy LC]

If I’ve had my BMR tested and I know it’s 1500 calories per day, is it scientifically possible for me to lose weight on a low-carb-higher-than-1500 calories-a-day diet (without exercise)?

In my opinion, its extremely complex to the point I don't think it has really been explained yet. There is no single unified theory of weight loss, calories or weight gain, IMHO. You add in things like gender, hormones, diseases, gut bacteria, drugs you're taking which may inhibit loss, and who the heck knows what will happen?

We get guys on this forum all the time that swear they can eat unlimited calories, and do, and lose weight. Then we get women who eat next to nothing and can't, or who gain when they don't. It's just complex and so far, inexpicable.

[ValerieL]

I found a fascinating link today - http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Classics/ah74.pdf

I didn't read it completely (frankly, my attention span for such scientific stuff isn't high) but if I got the gist of it correct, most calorie counts listed on nutritional labels would already take into account issues of calories available to the body, digestibility, etc, etc.

It suggests to me that some of the arguements we've made for why we can eat more calories on low carb don't hold water. I still think some do, insulin issues, the effects of a consistent low-carb diet and such aren't studied here, but it does take away the "well, protein isn't 100% digestible and carbs are, so that's why we can eat more calories on low-carb" arguement. It seems that's already been factored in to calorie counts.

[zedgirl]

In my opinion, its extremely complex to the point I don't think it has really been explained yet.

I guess I really just want to know if that particular scenario (in isolation) is still open to debate.......

[antz]

Abd writes:

"Something, perhaps a burst of testosterone, has convinced Mr. Colpo to make statements that probably he knows are false, were he to be a little more careful."

Abd, let's get a couple of things straight: First of all, I don't need hormonal surges to inspire me to present people with the facts. Secondly, I am not in the business of deliberately propagating falsehoods, and I highly resent your completely unfounded and malicious accusation that I have deliberately made false statements. Exactly who do you think you are to imply such rubbish??

Unlike yourself--a person who makes unwarranted and malevolent attacks from behind the anonymous safety of their computer screen--I publicly stand behind everything I write. I take what I do very, very seriously. I take my own health seriously, and write on the assumption that most of my readers do too. I don't have anything to gain by lying--I have not written any weight loss books nor do I market any weight loss supplements, so explain to me what exactly I would have to gain by lying on the calories in/calories out issue?

Like many of my critics:

1) you have not carefully read what I have written;

2) you rely not on valid criticism of my arguments, but attacks on my personal character;

3) You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

As an example of the first point, you criticize my "error in leaning on the common error: "A calorie is a calorie,"". In future, can you please actually read my articles before criticizing them? If you had done so, you would have read the following in 'Straight Out of My Inbox 9':

"Both low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets will induce weight loss when calorie intake is reduced below calorie output. However, the composition of that weight loss is far superior when an intelligently-constructed low-carbohydrate diet is employed. Research shows that such a diet maximizes the proportion of weight lost as fat, and greatly inhibits the loss of muscle that typically occurs with weight loss. In contrast, high-carb diets result in greater muscle catabolism and less fat loss. Low-carb diets, provided they contain sufficient fat, maximize the delivery of fats to the muscles and organs for use as fuel; in contrast, high-carbohydrate intakes--via their effects on blood glucose and insulin--promote the storage of fat in adipocytes. Due to this effect of high-carbohydrate diets, under conditions of calorie restriction the body is then forced to breakdown muscle tissue to meet its energy requirements."

and:

" many people still don't realize that whether you eat low-carb, zero-carb, hi-carb, medium-carb, whatever, the overiding stimulus for weight loss is a calorie deficit. You must be burning more calories than you are ingesting! I've yet to hear of anyone losing weight by eating more than they burn each day, regardless of macronutrient composition!

However, this doesn't mean that "a calorie is a calorie", as still claimed by many misguided researchers who should know better. Diets of different macronutrient composition can have a large impact on the type of weight loss, i.e fat vs lean tissue loss. Lean tissue loss is the bane of many dieters. Calorie restricted low-carbohydrate diets (truly low) and higher protein diets have been shown to exert a favorable nutrient-partitioning effect, meaning that the proportionate loss of fat and maintenance or even growth of lean tissue is greater. By increasing the supply of fat to muscles for fuel, instead of the adipocytes for storage, low-carb diets (provided they are moderate to high in fat) minimize the breakdown of muscle for fuel, as often occurs with high-carbohydrate diets."

Now, kindly explain to me how I can possibly be supporting the notion that "a calorie is a calorie" when I have clearly stated that I think this notion is garbage, and explained exactly why? Like I said, read my articles before criticizing them!!

As an example of the third point, you have written a bunch of circular, convoluted garbage to try and make your case, but none of it disputes the point which has started this whole kerfuffle--WEIGHT LOSS REQUIRES A CALORIE DEFICIT. IF YOU DO NOT EXPEND MORE CALORIES THAN YOU INGEST, YOU WILL NOT LOSE WEIGHT.

For all your convoluted, disconnected ranting, you fail to cite a single study in which people were fed a diet that clearly delivered an excess of calories above and beyond their daily caloric needs, yet still managed to lose weight. If you believe this is possible, you are probably the kind of person who thinks it is possible to save money on a $1000 per week income while spending $1200, $1500, or $2000 per week. Whether its your waistline or bank balance, ain't no escaping the laws of reality, mate!

You write:

" There are *many* factors in weight loss. "Calorie intake," without further qualification, is certainly not a "deciding factor."

Yes, there are many factors in weight loss, but without an underlying calorie deficit, none of them mean jack!! Caloric deficit is the underlying requirement for weight loss. Low-carbohydrate favorably alters the composition of that weight loss, but a caloric deficit is still required for the actual weight loss to occur.

The weird thing is, after pooh-poohing my writings, you then sheepishly acknowledge that "calories probably do count, but…"

No ifs or buts--they count!

You also write:

" The way this test was designed, it would be physically impossible to follow the diet and not lose weight."

Yes--because it is designed to establish a calorie deficit!!!!

"You won't gain weight by eating fiber."

Go ahead--consume a diet comprised primarily of fiber. Yeah you will lose weight, because it will be impossible to meet your caloric requirements on such a diet, and your frequent trips to the bathroom will make weight loss an inevitability. Sorry, but this is not quite my idea of healthy weight loss…

" the body is not as efficient burning ketones as it is in burning digestible carbs."

Energy wasting via ketone excretion is a very short-lived phenomenon that occurs only during the fat adaption process, and even then is responsible for "negligible calorie wasting"…don't rely on it to achieve your fat loss goals!!

" It is quite possible that if one added those 1000 calories as fat in the diet, in addition to the fat added to replace the carbohydrates taken out of the diet, that one would gain weight."

You bet it is possible! I am actually using a similar strategy right now to put on weight (primarily as muscle)--and it is working!

"But it is very difficult to eat that much fat, I think. Fat sates."

1000 calories equates to only around 111 g of fat--not that difficult to achieve.

"So, while it may not be true that "calories don't count," it *may* be true that it is unnecessary to count calories, and *this* is the claim that Atkins made."

First of all, I clearly explain that many people inadvertently reduce calories when they commence low-carb diets. Not all will do so, however. I personally know 2 females that PUT ON WEIGHT after reading and commencing Atkins. And yes, they were following it as instructed--including Atkins' assertion not to worry about counting calories. Calories don't count--like hell they don't!!!

"… the consumption of net carbohydrate grams apparently is correlated with weight loss much better than caloric content."

Evidence please? (This statement is garbage)

" I do know that, since I went on the Atkins diet, I have deliberately eaten my fill of butter, heavy cream, chicken skin, fatty meat, and the like. And I have not gained weight, indeed I lost a fair amount of weight doing this. I don't count calories."

Whether or not you counted calories, be aware that you nonetheless created a caloric deficit. That's the reason you lost weight.

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

[LC FP]

you wrote:

I just read the thread you refer to--I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I view this kind of stuff! The opinions held by some of these no doubt well-meaning folks are a major reason why I no longer recommend Atkins' books to anyone; while his books do indeed contain some useful info, a lot of people evidently take his "calories don't count" crap seriously!


From my copy of DANDR (1992) page 10:

"Now it has always been supposed that gaining weight results from taking in more calories than you expend through exercise, thermogenesis, and all the body's other metabolic functions. And in fact, this is quite true."

He goes on to say,

"Different kinds of diets can have different effects on the amount of calories a person's body consumes daily, and, by taking different metabolic pathways, can cause a body to require different amounts of energy to do its work. On a low-carbohydrate diet, there are metabolic advantages that will allow you to eat as many or more calories than you were eating before starting the diet and still begin losing pounds and inches.

And if you eat fewer calories-- most people do on this diet-- you'll lose weight very fast. It's not that calories don't count, it's just that you can, in fact, sneak them out of your body, unused, or dissipated as heat."


I don't see any crap.

And I don't see him saying calories don't count.

As a matter of fact, he says pretty much what you said. Actually, you said pretty much what he said in 1992.

Perhaps like Dr. Atkins' critics:

1) you have not carefully read what I have written;

[antz]

LC FP,

thank you for quoting from a 1992 version of DANDR. Now let me quote from a more recent version:

"There is no need to count calories. The Atkins Nutritional Approach counts grams of carbohydrates instead of calories."

Dr. Atkin's New Diet Revolution, Avon Books 2002: page 143.

This is, quite frankly, false. Many people won't need to count calories, but, as I am starting to get a little tired of repeating, others undeniably WILL.

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

[eepobee]

i'm planning to write a little more later, but i just wanted to add something quickly here.

first, if you look back at the thread (http://www.empowerfoods.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2656) that started this whole discussion, you'll notice that not one person claimed that calories didn't count. most were saying that they found counting calories to be unnecessary. i'm not sure how the discussion got twisted into whether calories count or not.

as anthony (and, btw, thanks for joining the discussion) has just said, many people will not need to count calories, but others will. this, to me, makes the argument that calories are the most important factor in weight loss a little harder to defend. i realize that many people (it seems a lot of whom are women) do need to cut calories to get to their goal weight or size. but others (including me) certainly do not. i've lost all the weight i've lost and maintained it for 6 years without ever consciously cutting calories. the only counting i've done is with carbs, which i stopped doing some time ago as well. this doesn't mean that calories don't count, it just means for some people calories are NOT the most important factor that they need to consider when trying to lose weight or maintain the weight they lost (or, even gain weight, for that matter).

[antz]

eepobee,

Thanks for the reply, but you are still missing the point. Regardless of whether you claim to have cut calories or not, if you lost weight then you were EXPENDING LESS CALORIES THAN YOU WERE CONSUMING.

I am starting to feel like a broken record, but a calorie deficit is the most fundamental requirement for weight loss. You can cut carbs to zero, you can follow funky food combining rituals, you can eat nothing but grapefruit all day, whatever, but NO CALORIE DEFICIT, NO WEIGHT LOSS. This point HAS been disputed in this thread (then paradoxically acknowledged in a half-baked manner by the same folk a sentence or two later, see Abd's post for an example).

As I have repeatedly asked, if anyone has evidencew from tightly-controlled clionical trials demonstrating weight loss under conditions of verified excess calorie intake, then LETS SEE IT. So many people are disputing what I say, but I'm still waiting for the evidence...

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

[Trinsdad]

I think what Anthony ment was in fact YES... you do need to count calories. Too many of us on these boards want to belive that you don't when in fact if you would simply take the time to increase your out put a bit and decrease your input a bit you can still lose fat and avoid hunger...but we don't we are too busy trying to figure out fat flushes and stall problems instead of "insert food" problems.

[bsheets]

Thanks for the reply, but you are still missing the point. Regardless of whether you claim to have cut calories or not, if you lost weight then you were EXPENDING LESS CALORIES THAN YOU WERE CONSUMING.

To eepobee, I believe that not all calories act in the same way when obtained from different foods. This results in some close calorie counting on some eating plans and next to none on others. However, the whole "expending less calories than you are consuming" still stands. It just means that as certain foods require more digestion etc than others, that's where your expending goes. Hence, you lose more weight eating certain foods - it still backs up that you must expend these calories in order to have a calorie deficit and to therefore lose weight.

e

[ItsTheWooo]

I think what Anthony ment was in fact YES... you do need to count calories. Too many of us on these boards want to belive that you don't when in fact if you would simply take the time to increase your out put a bit and decrease your input a bit you can still lose fat and avoid hunger...but we don't we are too busy trying to figure out fat flushes and stall problems instead of "insert food" problems.
:lol:
So true.

[ValerieL]

I think what Anthony ment was in fact YES... you do need to count calories.

Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, please, I don't think Anthony has ever said anyone needs to count calories. I don't get the impression he's telling anyone what to do. I get the impression he's just trying to make sure everyone understands that if you are not losing weight for any length of time if is because your calorie intake is exceeding your calorie expenditure.

If you never have trouble with your calories in exceeding your calories out, that's great, he isn't suggesting you should count calories, but the bottom line is that your calories out ARE higher than your calories in, even if you didn't consciously manipulate them to do that.

I think the great service he is doing is to remind everyone that if you have stopped losing weight after a while on your low-carb diet where you didn't have to count calories, it's likely that the reason for the stalled weight loss is that the amount of calories you are consuming while on your low-carb diet is now equal to or higher than the new lowered calorie expenditure you have as a result of being x number of pounds lighter.

I didn't count a single calorie while losing weight starting at 300 lbs, I ate low-carb chocolate, fatty ground beef, lots of artificially sweetened whipped cream on my diet jello. But the calorie expenditure of a 300 lb, 39 year old woman is much different than the calorie expenditure of a 41 year old 185 lb woman. It just takes alot less calories to move my body through the day now that it's 115 lbs lighter. I can maintain eating my original low-carb diet, but I can't lose on it anymore. Now to lose more, I must lower my calories.

Val

[eepobee]

Thanks for the reply, but you are still missing the point. i don't think i'm missing the point, anthony; i'm just making a different one. one that i believe is more germane to diet and weight loss.
Regardless of whether you claim to have cut calories or not, if you lost weight then you were EXPENDING LESS CALORIES THAN YOU WERE CONSUMING.
yes, i was expending less calories than i was consuming. BUT I DIDN'T HAVE TO CONSUME LESS CALORIES OR INCREASE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY TO DO IT. in other words, I DIDN'T NEED TO COUNT CALORIES. all i did was change the macronutriet composition of my diet. this is the point i've been trying to make, and i think the point those at the empower foods forum we're making as well. i don't know how the discussion turned into "calories don't count". do you?

as far as uncovering tightly-controlled clinical trials that demonstrate weight-loss without calorie deficit, forget it. first, show me a tightly-controlled clinical trial that demonstrates weight-loss with a calorie deficit. the problem is that there would have to be a method for very accurately measuring energy expenditure (including metabolic processes). there isn't. however, if you look at kekwick's study, you'll see that those on 1000-calorie high-carb diet, did not lose weight. in this case, there was a calorie-deficit, but no weight loss. how do you reconcile that with the laws of thermodynamics? would you suggest that these people were expending less than 1000-calories/day? or maybe this wasn't "tightly-controlled" enough.

another problem with finding a study that meets your criteria is that researchers rarely, if ever, force participants to eat more than they're comfortabe eating. it's interesting that when lc diets studies are conducted, and participants are told to eat as much as they like, the seem to always lose weight. i wonder how it is that no one gains weight like the 2 women you referred to. if most people need to worry about how many calories they are consuming or expending, wouldn't you expect at least some of those on ad libitum lc diets to gain weight?

finally, i'm sure the all-meat experiment (http://www.powerhealth.net/articles/adventuresindietpart2.htm) done on stefannson and anderson in 1928-29 doesn't qualify as tightly-controlled, but let's look at what they ate:
A conclusion of our experiment which the medical profession seemingly find difficult to assimilate, but which at the same time is one of our clearest results, is that a normal meat diet is not a high protein diet. We averaged about a pound and a third of lean per day and half a pound of fat (this is about like eating a two pound broiled sirloin with the fat such a steak usually has on it). That seems like eating mostly lean; but grow technical and you find, in energy units, that we were really getting three-quarters of our calories from the fat. That is what the scientists meant when they said at the end of our diet had proved to be not so very high in protein.
hmmm...a pound and a third of lean meat per day (1 1/3 lbs = 600 grams = 2400 calories) + a half pound of fat (.5 lbs. = 225 grams = 2000 calories) = 4400 calories/day. they both lost weight.

[kaypeeoh]

Again, there's nothing wrong with having a different priority set, but if your priority is weight loss, AND your goal is ambitious relative to baseline, it's very likely that Atkins as written will do it for you. You'll have to watch the cals, too.

Well constructed essay. One problem I see that ruins the message: At least twice you used the word 'irregardless'. 'Regardless' is a word, 'irrespective' is a word. Sorry to be so pedantic but I really hate seeing or hearing that word. :-)

[ValerieL]

i was expending less calories than i was consuming. BUT I DIDN'T HAVE TO CONSUME LESS CALORIES OR INCREASE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY TO DO IT.

Are you sure you didn't consume less calories than you were before starting low-carb? Not having to count calories is not the same as not consuming as many calories. Your statement above says your calorie expenditure increased merely with the change in the macro nutrient makeup of your diet. If you didn't increase activity or consume less calories, then just eating low-carb increased the number of calories you were burning each day?

If you are sure you were eating the same number of calories on your low-carb diet as you were before it, then you have a point. And I'm willing to grant that there may be SOME increase in calorie expenditure from the change to a low-carb diet, but I have trouble believing it is the sole reason you lost that much weight.

I think if the above is true, and you really didn't lower your caloric intake to lose weight (whether you lowered it by design or whether it lowered itself automatically after switching to low-carb) then you are exceptionally lucky.

Personally, I know I that my calories lowered on low-carb, I ate less. Low carb made that easy, and I do believe I lost more on low-carb than I would have on the same number of calories following a low-fat diet (that is, I believe there is some caloric expenditure benefit to low carb as well), but I don't believe that without the decreased caloric intake that came naturally as a result of switching to low-carb that I would have lost any significant amount of weight.

Val

[eepobee]

Are you sure you didn't consume less calories than you were before starting low-carb? no, i'm not sure. actually, i probably eat much more now than i did pre-lc, but as i said i don't count calories. the point is that in theory and in practice, one doesn't have to consume less calories or increase physical activity in order to create an energy deficit. anthony neglected to consider this in his discussion on why calories count.

[Mandra]

"There is no need to count calories. The Atkins Nutritional Approach counts grams of carbohydrates instead of calories."

Dr. Atkin's New Diet Revolution, Avon Books 2002: page 143.



In the following paragraph he states:

"Although there is no need to count calories, they do matter. Gaining weight results from taking in more calories than you expend through exercise, thermogenesis (the body's own heat production) and other metabolic functions. Research has shown that on a controlled carbohydrate program, more calories are burned than in a low-fat/high-carb diet, so there is a certain metabolic advantage to the controlled carb approach. But understand that this does not give you a license to gorge"

Probably a big part of the calorie problem is that a lot of us will eat even when we are not hungry. Whether for emotional reasons, or simply because of habit, we'll chow down mindlessly on low-carb food thinking we're okay. He touches on this in Chapter 21, but probably not strongly enough.

[ValerieL]

no, i'm not sure. actually, i probably eat much more now than i did pre-lc, but as i said i don't count calories. the point is that in theory and in practice, one doesn't have to consume less calories or increase physical activity in order to create an energy deficit. anthony neglected to consider this in his discussion on why calories count.

I guess that's my point, you say one doesn't have to consume less calories or increase physical activity in order to create an energy deficit.

Do you truly believe that merely changing the macronutrient makeup of your diet from what you were eating before to low-carb is enough to lose weight?

Do you really think that a 300 lb woman, who eats about 3000 calories a day to maintain that weight, could lose 2 lbs a week while still eating 3000 calories a day merely because the 3000 calories are low-carb, not high carb. Is it your contention that switching to a low-carb diet is enough to increase your energy expenditure by the equivalent of 1000 calories a day (the amount of calorie deficit necessary for a 2 lb/week loss)?

[Mandra]

Eepobee, you didn't have a huge amount to lose. I'd guess that for those who have to lose large amounts, although they may not have to worry about calories at first, it will become a concern in the long run. I think we get used to eating a certain amount at a high weight, but continue to eat that amount out of habit as our weight decreases. At some point we have to realize that we don't need as much food. I know I'm often guilty of "wanting to eat" when I'm not "hungry", and although I eat low carb and therefore can get away with eating more than if I pig out on carbs, I still need to learn to listen to my body and determine if I am really hungry or just have the munchies. I think this is what Atkins if referring to by "Satisfied, but not stuffed". Possibly if we only eat when truly hungry calories do not need to be "counted".

[eepobee]

Do you truly believe that merely changing the macronutrient makeup of your diet from what you were eating before to low-carb is enough to lose weight?

yes, i do. i refer again to the feinman and fine article (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-1-15.pdf) where they summarized some of the studies on lc diets. the sondike study showed that on a 1830-calorie lc diet, participants lost an average of a 9.9 kg (22 .lbs) over 12 weeks. those on an 1100-calore hc diet lost only 4.4kg over the same period.

so yes, if it takes 3000 calories on a hc diet to maintain weight, than i think this woman could lose 2 lbs/week by switching to an lc diet without reducing calorie intake.

[ValerieL]

so yes, if it takes 3000 calories on a hc diet to maintain weight, than i think this woman could lose 2 lbs/week by switching to an lc diet without reducing calorie intake.

And now, after losing 115 lbs, and weighing 185, I should STILL not have to lower my caloric intake? I should still be able to eat 3000 calories a day (as long as it's low-carb) and lose weight?

You are saying calories never come into play? Ever?

I can guarantee you that if I ate 3000 calories a day right now, even if it's low-carb, I'd be gaining weight.

[UpTheHill]

I can guarantee you that if I ate 3000 calories a day right now, even if it's low-carb, I'd be gaining weight.

I've been tracking my calories in and out since Feb '04, and have enough data to be sure that if I ate 3000 calories per day and kept exercising at my current level, I'd gain 65.7 lbs in the next year.

Lynda

[ValerieL]

Your link above makes what I consider to be the same mistake you are making - it says that if you accept the idea that there is a metabolic advantage to low-carbing (or in their article, metabolic inefficiency) then the statement 'a calorie is a calorie' is incorrect.

It's possible (and probably more accurate) to believe that a calorie is a calorie and also that there is a metabolic advantage to low-carbing. There is a limit as to the metabolic advantage that can be produced by switching the macronutrient make up of a diet. There must be a point at which the metabolism is as inefficient as it can possibly get and there is no further room for increased caloric expenditure by the body, and if calories are consumed that are above that amount of expenditure, even if they are low-carb calories, the person will gain weight.

I agree calories are not the only consideration, but I haven't seen anything yet (including your references) to convince me it has NO bearing on weight loss in the presense of a low-carb diet.

[UpTheHill]

I agree calories are not the only consideration, but I haven't seen anything yet (including your references) to convince me it has NO bearing on weight loss in the presence of a low-carb diet.

And I'd like to add to Val's comment with this: If you take the time and effort to keep very good calorie in/out records, you'd be really surprised at just how predictive the good old 3500 calories per pound really is.

Here's 630 days of data:

Calories eaten: 1,380,960
Calories burned: 1,582,560

Total deficit: 201,600

Predicted weight loss: 57.6 lbs



Start weight: 208.21
End weight: 150.93

Weight loss: 57.26



Given numbers like that, I'm not going to start slopping extra cream and butter on my dinner in the hopes that there will be some magic metabolic advantage that's going to make those calories not count for me.

I like the comparison to money and savings accounts, and I think that there probably is a metabolic advantage that's a lot like bank interest on your savings account. It's there, but it sure doesn't add up to very much when compared your income and spending habits.

Lynda

[Samuel]

Here's 630 days of data:

Calories eaten: 1,380,960
Calories burned: 1,582,560

Total deficit: 201,600

Predicted weight loss: 57.6 lbs

Start weight: 208.21
End weight: 150.93

Weight loss: 57.26
Lynda
How did you know the number of calories burnt?

[UpTheHill]

I used Fitday PC, and set my "normal day" starting point to 8 hours of sleep and 16 hours of light seated activity.

Then I wear my pedometer all day, which measures calories of step activity and elapsed time, and enter step based calories using a custom activity I set up at 5 calories per minute. (That's my average burn rate for step based activities.) Fitday PC recalculates my day's calorie burn so that I only get credit for the calories burned above and beyond my background "normal" day.

If I have a day where I do significant activity that won't register on a pedometer (like an hour of biking), I take of my pedometer and enter an hour of biking into my activity log.

Between my background "normal day", my pedometer, and logging any big special calorie burners, I end up with a pretty decent measure of what I'm burning.

I don't measure tiny stuff like lowering the thermostat to 65 and not wearing a sweater, calorie burn from chewing bubble gum or combing my hair, or added body weight from wearing a heavy coat in the winter. All of that stuff does count, but not anywhere near as much as real whole body activity. (The tiny stuff counts about as much as carrying a full cup of coffee in your car would affect your highway gas mileage.) I just make sure to be very consistent in catching all of my major activity every day.

Lynda

[Nancy LC]

I don't measure tiny stuff like lowering the thermostat to 65 and not wearing a sweater,

You know, just read some interesting studies about this. Apparently you get an increase in appetite from cold weather that more than offsets any additional calories you burn. I'll try to find the link.

Here it is, the study abstracts are embedded in this thread: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10197

[Samuel]

I used Fitday PC, and set my "normal day" starting point to 8 hours of sleep and 16 hours of light seated activity...
Lynda
Thanks. If there was any reason I disagree with you it would be because it should depend on the metabolism too. Different people have different metabolisms and also our bodies can change our metabolisms as they see necessary.

Concerning low carb diet, I think most of the metabolic advantage happens during the first few months of the diet when our bodies waste plenty of ketones. After that, if there was any advantage it should be no more than 100 calories a day.

The value of Atkins diet is not in the metabolic advantage. There are two benefits in Atkins diet:

(1) It can be combined with a low calorie diet to make it easier just like you do.

(2) If you allow yourself to eat all the food your body wants while keeping your carb intake low, you will see the other benefit. Your weight will go up to a specific amount then stops and stays the same forever.

[antz]

Epobee,

do me a favor and don't ever embark on a career in science journalism, because you really have no idea how to get your facts right.

Re the Stefannson and Anderson Bellevue Hospital experiment, you write that they ate:

"hmmm...a pound and a third of lean meat per day (1 1/3 lbs = 600 grams = 2400 calories) + a half pound of fat (.5 lbs. = 225 grams = 2000 calories) = 4400 calories/day. they both lost weight."

Crikey…

I have the paper right here (JAMA, July 6, 1929; 93 (1): 20-23), and it says, I quote:

"Steffansson averaged about 2,650 calories a day…Anderson averaged about 2,620 calories a day."

Hmmm…

These guys were not highly active during the study (not that you would know, because you obviously have not read it)--if they had consumed the 4400 calories/day figure that you pulled out of goodness knows where, they would have put on weight REAL QUICK!!

You write:

"however, if you look at kekwick's study, you'll see that those on 1000-calorie high-carb diet, did not lose weight. in this case, there was a calorie-deficit, but no weight loss. how do you reconcile that with the laws of thermodynamics? would you suggest that these people were expending less than 1000-calories/day? or maybe this wasn't "tightly-controlled" enough."

You stoop to the shady practice of selective citation when you cite Kekwick and Pawan's study, which you claim showed no weight loss on a cal-restricted low-fat diet. You ignore the dozens of trials that HAVE shown weight loss on such a diet!

The Kekwick and Pawan trial, although a favorite citation of low-carb supporters, is one of the great garbage weight loss trials of all time--it really tells us nothing of value, because it was a very short, poorly-controlled affair.

The authors even went to the unusual step of complaining about the very poor compliance of the subjects in their paper, writing that the study participants would "…cheat and lie, obtaining food from visitors, from trolleys touring the wards, and from neighbouring patients…the results we report are selected…"

This is your support for your dissent of the importance of the calorie equation? A single poorly-controlled study from the 1950's?!

Furthermore, the 1000-calorie portion of the experiment lasted only 7 days. It has been shown repeatedly since that water loss accounts for the bulk of the difference in weight loss between hi-carb and low-carb diets during this time…again you wouldn't know that because you simply have not taken the time to scrupulously examine the literature, have you? My advice…take a break from spouting unfounded nonsense on this otherwise fine forum, locate your nearest medical library, and start familiarizing yourself with the literature!

You also write:

"as far as uncovering tightly-controlled clinical trials that demonstrate weight-loss without calorie deficit, forget it. first, show me a tightly-controlled clinical trial that demonstrates weight-loss with a calorie deficit."

You want trials showing weight loss with calorie restriction? I can't believe you even need to ask for this, but what the heck, here are some, hopefully you'll bother to take the advice I just gave above, track these studies down and actually read them:

Baron JA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low fat/high fiber diets for weight loss. American Journal of Public Health, 1986; 76 (11): 1293-1296.

Wadden TA. Treatment of obesity by moderate and severe caloric restriction. Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1993; 119 (7, Pt. 2): 688-693.

Foreyt JP, Goodrick GK. Evidence for success of behavior modification in weight loss and control. Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1993; 119 (7, Pt. 2): 698-701.

Alford BB, et al. The effects of variations in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1990; 90: 534-540.

Racette SB, et al. Effects of aerobic exercise and dietary carbohydrate on energy expenditure and body composition during weight reduction in obese women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1995; 61: 486-494.

Golay A, et al. Weight-Loss With Low or High Carbohydrate Diet? International Journal of Obesity, 1996; 20 (12): 1067-1072.

Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1996; 63: 174-178.

Lean ME, et al. Weight loss with high and low carbohydrate 1200 kcal diets in free living women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Apr. 1997; 51 (4): 243-248.

Torbay N, et al. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet in treatment of obese normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic subjects. Nutrition Research, May 2002; 22 (5): 587-598.

Layman DK, et al. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. Journal of Nutrition, 2003; 133: 411-417.

Layman DK. The role of leucine in weight loss diets and glucose homeostasis. Journal of Nutrition, 2003; 133: 261S-267S.

Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, March 2003; 142: 253-258.

Volek JS, et al. Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet. Metabolism, July 2002; 51 (7): 864-870.

Brehm, et al. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003; 88 (4): 1617-1623.

Wien MA, et al. Almonds vs complex carbohydrates in a weight reduction program.. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, Nov 2003; 27 (11): 1365-1372.

Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2082-2090.

Samaha FF, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet as compared with a low fat diet in severe obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2074-2081.

Stern L, et al. The Effects of Low-Carbohydrate versus Conventional Weight Loss Diets in Severely Obese Adults: One-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2004; 140: 778-785.

Yancy WS, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet versus a Low-Fat Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2004; 140: 769-777.

Johnston CS, et al. High-protein, low-fat diets are effective for weight loss and favorably alter biomarkers in healthy adults. Journal of Nutrition, Mar, 2004; 134 (3): 586-591.

Puhleeez, get your facts right…

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

[Nancy LC]

Hey Anthony, nice to see you here again. So glad you commented on that Kekwick study because it always really bugged the heck out of me. It just made no sense.

The Kekwick and Pawan trial, although a favorite citation of low-carb supporters, is one of the great garbage weight loss trials of all time--it really tells us nothing of value, because it was a very short, poorly-controlled affair.

[ItsTheWooo]

Probably a big part of the calorie problem is that a lot of us will eat even when we are not hungry. Whether for emotional reasons, or simply because of habit, we'll chow down mindlessly on low-carb food thinking we're okay. He touches on this in Chapter 21, but probably not strongly enough.

Good point;
I think people train themselves to over eat. They come to view any feeling but "not hungry" or "very full" as uncomfortable. Result? They eat more as a natural process and find it hard to lose weight.

I think when starting a diet people should err in favor of "empty" for a number of days; learn what real hunger feels like. Under eating for months to lose all the weight has helped me tremendously with this. I actually find feeling too full uncomfortable, in much the same way being too hungry feels uncomfortable. It didn't bother me that much back when I was intake-indifferent.

[antz]

ItsTheWoo has made a very good point...people nowadays routinely eat out of habit/social practice rather than genuine hunger...with caloric overconsumption the inevitable result.

I often advise my clients to reacquaint themselves with the feeling of genuine hunger...many actually take delight in learning to eat only when truly hungry, it gives them a sense of empowerment, and they do not feel full and bloated all the time as often occurs on the "eat every 2 hours" nonsense (another big myth...).

Low-carb diets greatly facilitate the above practice, because they really do favorably affect satiety. Makes it a lot easier for people to reign in their food intake, eat only when truly hungry and...dare I say it...establish a calorie deificit!!

And Nancy, thanks, and yeah, it frustrates me to see the Pekwik and Kawan study cited when there are so much better, more recent trials to report on...

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

[LC FP]

Mandra

Thanks for the quote. I think the main problem is that nobody really understands how our metabolism works. Not even Dr. Atkins. We get all hung up on details, especially if things aren't going well for us. We try to find a way and usually we find one that works for us.

But I think we should remember that if it weren't for Dr. Atkins going through what he went through when he wrote his first book in 1972, and his perseverance when all the power of organized medicine was against him, we probably would still be eating low fat twinkies.

We owe this guy a debt of gratitude, in my opinion. I know I owe him my improved health.

[Nancy LC]

Ok, I think my sanity is coming back home for a visit:

Convinced that fluid balance, not diet composition, was the cause of the weight loss reported by Kekwick and Pawan, Pilkington et al. (74) repeated their studies for longer periods of time (18 or 24 days). His results were comparable with Kekwick and Pawan’s during the first few days on each of the diets. However, there was a steady rate of weight loss with each of the 1000-kcal diets thereafter, regardless of whether the calories came from fat, protein, or CHO. Although he did not measure fluid balance, Pilkington (74) concluded that temporary differences in weight loss were due to such changes. He stated “if the periods of study are long enough to achieve a ‘steady state’ the rate of weight loss on a diet consisting mainly of fat does not differ significantly from the rate of weight loss on an isocaloric diet consisting mainly of CHO.” Oleson and Quaade’s (75) experiment, which lasted for 3 weeks, had a similar conclusion.

[Dodger]

I was never able to sustain a weight loss on a high-carb/low-fat diet. Hunger always won and I ended up bingeing too often. Low carb has worked for me as I can eat all I want and lose/maintain weight. Unlike the high-carb/low-fat problem, I don't have to be hungry all the time on low carbs.

Counting calories is something that I do not have to do on low carb. I don't have to pay attention to how many calories I take in or how many I use, I just allow hunger to be my guide. On days I exercise a lot, I eat more. On recovery days, I may or may not eat less, depending on my appetite.

[Nancy LC]

I was never able to sustain a weight loss on a high-carb/low-fat diet. Hunger always won and I ended up bingeing too often.
Yeah, I bet the people stealing food off the trolley's in that other study were on the high carb diet. Probably that study where "mental effects" were noted they had people on high carb, low calorie too. Sure, when you're battling blood sugar you're going to be having an extra hard time of it.

[ItsTheWooo]

Yeah, I bet the people stealing food off the trolley's in that other study were on the high carb diet. Probably that study where "mental effects" were noted they had people on high carb, low calorie too. Sure, when you're battling blood sugar you're going to be having an extra hard time of it.

Right; I think it helps to seperate reducing calories on a metabolic disease causing diet from reducing calories on a low carbohydrate diet. I often suggest people to count calories when they stall; often they respond that they are afraid they will feel hungry. They only know calorie counting in the high-carb context, so they feel reducing intake itself produces those awful blood sugar extreme hunger symptoms. In reality, most of the excessive hunger experienced on traditional weight loss diets isn't due to under eating but to blood sugar drops.

On low carb, if I planned my meals right, I can eat very little food and not feel spectacularly hungry. Yea I'm hungrier, of course. It's not the extreme, panic, soul-battle hunger you get when your body is in that emergency mode from hypoglycemia & high insulin. Many other carb sensitive obese people are the same way; they equate hunger with blood sugar drops, so they are afraid to restrict (even in the context of a low carb diet).

I feel I never knew what hunger was till starting low carb. All I knew was extreme fullness, and panic urgency of a blood sugar emergency. It was a weird state. The only time I think my metabolism worked at all was first thing in the morning; it is only then I felt satiety (and the total loss of appetite/fat burning my obesity SHOULD have produced). Soon after eating, though, that all went down hill and back on the sugar roller coaster we went. Low carb allowed me to preserve that "morning effect" all day. My body normalized intake and appetite accordingly, and I lost a lot of weight. Would I have lost as much weight without counting? Not likely. BUT I do agree with most of our forum members that I probably could have reduced my size to a healthy range by only counting carbs. For most people who are carb sensitive, counting the carbs is enough to fix most of the weight thing. The weight & eating is a symptom of the carbs; control one and you control the other.
If you have specific & very ambitious fitness goals (e.g. a 145 lb woman who wants to be extra paper-thin slender at 109) ... or significant emo/binge eating tendencies... then it may help to count cals too. But most people will find it redundant.

[eepobee]

Epobee,
do me a favor and don't ever embark on a career in science journalism, because you really have no idea how to get your facts right. hey Ntz, thanks for the career advice! i was thinking about getting out of janitorial sevices and into the science journalism game, but your kind guidance has convinced me to stay put. oi fa voi!

and it's eepobee, btw.

i don't want to waste too much time commenting on the incendiary tone of your posts, but this is a public discussion forum and there are established rules (http://forum.lowcarber.org/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_forum_rules) for addressing each other. perhaps you should consult these rules before posting again.

discussing nutritional issues that i don't fully understand with people who might have a different perspective on things is one of the main reasons i come here. others in this thread have managed to disagree with me without adding snide commentary and i tried to extend the same courtesy. i'm sure you feel you have nothing to gain by engaging in civil exchange of ideas with people like me, but forum etiquette is definitely an area you could take notes on. if you find it impossible to post without attacking, could you at least mix in some sarcasm or self-deprecating humor so you don't come off as an angry, egotistical, jack**s?

and if you'd like to further discuss my career path or give me tips on researching my posts, please feel free to pm me and i'll give you my email address. or are you just interested in flexing your virtual muscle in front of everyone?

since you gave me such valuable advice in dissuading me away from a career in science journalism, i thought i might return the gesture. if you plan on making persuasive argurments in a scientific forum, in the future you might want to refrain from referring to conflicting ideas as "garbage" or accusing others of not knowing what they're talking about based on nothing more then your misguided sense of superiority. i have a feeling that the scientific community won't be very impressed with either your bullying or your credentials.</rant>

back on topic, the calorie count i came up with was based on the writings of steffansson himself (adventures in diet, parts 1-3). however, i wrote that at about 2 am last night, and remembered this morning that meat isn't just protein and fat, which i mistakingly assumed when i calculated their calorie intake. since you have access to more resources than me (i'm in korea with a few text books, the internet and no medical library within a two-hour train ride), i'll take your word that steffansson and anderson averaged around 2600 calories. so at 2600 calories, how do you know that both men experienced a calorie-deficit?

if you read my last post again, you'll note that i asked you to provide me with a tightly-controlled clinical trial that demonstrates weight-loss with a calorie deficit, not calorie restriction. as i noted in that post, the reason you can't do this is because accurately measuring energy expenditure is very difficult and is rarely, if ever, done in combination with weight loss studies. therefore, i find your request for a tightly-controlled clinical trial that demonstrates weight-loss without a calorie deficit disingenuous.

the kekwick study is referenced often, and i used it because it was easiest to access. i do have a lot of constraints on my time; you know floors to sweep, toilets to scrub. but i did find the author's quote you referenced, about the problems they experienced. here is the whole quote: In such a study the difficulties are formidable. The first and main hazard was that many of these patients had inadequate personalities. At worst they would cheat and lie, obtaining food from visitors, from trolleys touring the wards, and from neighbouring patients. (Some required almost complete isolation.) At best they cooperated fully but a few found the diet so trying that they could not eat the whole of their meals. When this happened the rejected part was weighed, and the equivalent calories and foodstuffs were added to a meal later in the day. The results we report are selected, a considerable number of known failures in discipline being discarded.

i noticed you cut out "a considerable number of known failure in discipline being discarded". perhaps you should change your slogan from "just the facts" to "just the facts that support my argument", huh?

since you seem to be evading my questions, let me reiterate my point(s). in your article "calories do count, baby" you mention that "One can employ both calorie restriction and increased physical activity so that calorie expenditure exceeds calorie intake". i contend that there is a third way to increase calorie expediture without calorie restriction or increased physical activity; namely by changing the macronutrient content of your diet. do you agree or disagree with this assertion? and if calorie restriction and/or increased physical activity are such a crucial part of weight loss, why do people studied on ad libitum lc diet invariably lose weight?

[bsheets]

Eepobee, you go boy!! :)

e

[Mandra]

i'll take your word that steffansson and anderson averaged around 2600 calories. so at 2600 calories, how do you know that both men experienced a calorie-deficit?



Hmmmm....don't know how accurate FitDay is in this regard, but it claims that I am burning about 2700-2800 calories a day with a lifestyle level of "Seated work, some movement". This does not include exercise. I don't know how much these guys weigh or do, or how old they are, but I'd expect a guy of similar weight, age and activity level to me would be burning more.

[Nancy LC]

Fitday is not accurate. It grossly overestimated my BMR.

[ItsTheWooo]

Fitday is not accurate. It grossly overestimated my BMR.

Mine too.

Maybe fitday PC is accurate; but fitday online, for energy out, is worthless.

I find even the "comatose" lifestyle reading is sort of accurate, but even that's a bit too high :lol:.
I'm not significantly lazier than most people I think ;)

[Nancy LC]

Nope, mine was wrong on the PC.

[LC FP]

Nobody questions that calories in have to equal calories out.

Calories in are pretty easy to measure.

Calories out are not easy to measure.

I suspect most people think calories out are just calories burned plus calories stored.

There's a lot more to it than that. Calories out are actually:

Calories burned + calories stored + calories lost + calories wasted.

(Plus non-fuel calories like fats and cholesterol that become incorporated into cell walls, and amino acids which form structural proteins and enzymes. But these structural elements could all potentially be burned, eventually, so I'll ignore them.)

Calories lost are all the calories that you shed from your body in various ways, so they can't be burned or stored. Like the calories you excrete from your intestines and bladder. These calories originated from "calories in", so you have to account for them. Also anytime you visit the barber, the hair you lose originated from calories in. Unless you eat that hair, it's gone from the equation. Or anytime you shave, or trim your nails, or exhale the odor of food you ate (esp. garlic), or shower off billions of skin cells every morning. The actual amount of calories lost can probably be calculated, and I admit it isn't a great deal. But it's more than zero. And it may be more than negligible.

How about Calories Wasted. This is what eepobee meant, I think. It is far from negligible, and it varies continuously. And it is definitely related to your diet composition. In various abstracts I read it can vary from 20 to 40% of calories ingested, and these percentages probably refer to regular human diets, not the kind we eat. :lol:

I'd like to explain at least one method your body uses to waste calories. The following is not really very technical, it's just not for the faint of heart...


The fuel you eat (carbs and fat) is transported to the mitochondria in all your cells (that have mitochondria) where it is converted into chemical energy, ATP. If some of the fuel you burn is not converted into ATP, it is wasted. It leaves the system as heat. No ATP is generated from it. It is metabolic inefficiency. It is what allows me to eat a TON of calories, more than I ate when I weighed 35 pounds more. No -- I didn't count them. And I have no idea what FitDay is, and I don't want to know. But you can ask my wife how much I eat.

In the mitochondria the chemical bonds between carbon and hydrogen atoms release energy that pumps protons across the internal membranes within that mitochondrion. When these protons re-cross the membrane (due to electrostatic forces) thay drive an enzyme called ATP synthase, which forms ATP from ADP + phosphate.

If there was no other way to get those protons back across that membrane, our metabolism would be 100% efficient and we'd all be fat as hell, or explode from all the stored ATP. (maybe this is what spontaneous combustion is?)

But also in that membrane are uncoupling proteins (UCPs) which allow a certain number of protons to "leak" back across the membrane, bypassing ATP synthase. These UCPs can be turned on and off by various metabolites, including ADP. But they are always present, and therefore the amount of ATP a cell can make at any given instant can be increased or decreased in that instant, depending on the conditions or requirements inside the cell.

And-- the number of UCPs in each mitochondrion can increase and decrease. Guess what factors affect those numbers?

From the following PDF:

It has been shown that increased circulating levels of free fatty acids are associated with a higher expression of UCP3 mRNA in muscle, which suggests that the expression of the UCP3 gene in muscle is increased under conditions of higher fatty acid use as a fuel.

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/2/143

(If you google mitochondria, uncoupling proteins and diet you can find tons more.)


So if I eat an Atkins high fat high calorie diet, all my mitochondria in all my cells contain enhanced numbers of uncoupling proteins, allowing a lot of my calories to be burned without the formation of ATP, and without incurring a storage (fat) penalty. Even though I eat a lot of calories (units of heat), I don't store a lot of kgs (units of weight) of fat.

And if you eat a low fat diet, your metabolism is more efficient, and more of your consumed calories drive ATP formation, which if you don't exercise them off become fat.

So eepobee is right. Changing the macronutrient composition of your diet is the third way to increase calorie expenditure without calorie restriction.

[Nancy LC]

That's all well and good but why is it that for some of us, we still have to watch every last little stinking calorie or we don't lose? Or worse, we gain?

It is typically a male that gets on and talks about how he eats more than normal on low carb and loses weight, and its typically women I run into on this message forum that stop being able to lose weight on LC until they start counting calories.

Don't get me wrong, I love LC for many reasons, but as a magical, eat-lots-of-calories-and-still-lose diet it isn't for me and lots of others.

And why is it that some drugs, like prednisone and some anti-depressents, and hormones, cause people to gain weight on fewer calories?

[LC FP]

Right; I think it helps to seperate reducing calories on a metabolic disease causing diet from reducing calories on a low carbohydrate diet. I often suggest people to count calories when they stall; often they respond that they are afraid they will feel hungry. They only know calorie counting in the high-carb context, so they feel reducing intake itself produces those awful blood sugar extreme hunger symptoms. In reality, most of the excessive hunger experienced on traditional weight loss diets isn't due to under eating but to blood sugar drops.

I hadn't thought of it in that way before. I still fear hunger, although I must admit I haven't really felt it (like I remember it) lately. Actually it's been over 2 years since I've really felt it.

But the fear remains. I hated that feeling.

After reading your post, I think I would be willing to try calorie restriction, if I ever want to get to my goal weight. I'm not sure I need to, it's just the weight at which my BMI hits 25. I feel pretty good where I am. Maybe my metabolism is telling me "that's enough".

[LC FP]

I'm not saying that you don't have to cut calories to get to your goal weight. I'm pretty sure I'll have to cut calories to get to my goal weight. I'm on a 2 year stall, I guess. If I've made my metabolism inefficient and gotten this far with it, I guess this is all the farther I will get. It isn't only women that "stop losing weight on low carb."

I agree that men lose faster, and maybe more, on lc. Maybe we're more "apple shaped" than women. In this study of women the more insulin sensitive they were (pear shaped) the better they did on a low-fat diet-
Obesity Research 13:703-709 (2005)-- sorry I don't have a hot link.

Prednisone does bad things to people's appetites, along with fluid retention and other stuff. Antidepressants affect appetite. Hormones are hormones, your body is supposed to react to them in various ways. If your body is making the hormone usually the effect is good. If you're ingesting the hormone you just know it's not going to work perfectly.

[Nancy LC]

I hadn't thought of it in that way before. I still fear hunger, although I must admit I haven't really felt it (like I remember it) lately. Actually it's been over 2 years since I've really felt it.

When I experience hunger on low carb it isn't nearly as horrible as it was on high carb. Its just a short of gentle reminder from the mid-section that I should eat. And cutting calories doesn't necessarily mean you have to go hungry either, it just means you choose less calorie dense food. Sometimes my hunger gets displayed as sleepiness, which is definitely weird. I used to get nauseous along with hunger pangs in my high carb days. It is horrible feeling you have to vomit unless you eat something.

I always wondered about prednisone. You see these sick little kids and they look so obese, but you know they've been through a terrible illness, they can't possibly be that fat.

I saw a show last night about a little kid that survived an internal decapitation. Wow! Talk about lucky. But he had that stay-puft-marshmallow look that I bet was the prednisone.

[antz]

Epobee,

First of all, I make no apologies whatsoever for the tone of my reply. I stated a simple physiological fact on my web site--that weight loss will not occur without a calorie deficit--and I am then subjected to the antics of people like yourself; people who, out of knee-jerk reaction, accusing me of saying things I did not, who accuse me of "neglecting" to mention things I have in fact clearly and repeatedly underscored in my writings, who cite shoddy evidence and attempt to impress their fellow forum posters by citing studies they clearly have never even read. After spending most of your time in this thread disputing what I say, you now acknowledge that calories ARE important, that they DO count!

Your sensibilities have evidently been offended by the tone of my replies. Gee, I didn't see you jump on your high moral horse and berate Abd for falsely accusing me of acting out of testosterone-fueled irrationalism and being dishonest…I guess forum etiquette doesn't matter to you when someone who agrees with you acts like a "jack**ss" towards someone you don't agree with, does it?

Now, let me address some of your latest claims:

First of all, you resort to Abd's tactics by insinuating dishonesty on my part w