What If Both The Medical Establishment And Dr. Atkins Promoted Big Fat Lies?

[tamarian]

I received this by email from the author, who wanted to share this:.
--

WHAT IF BOTH THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT AND DR. ROBERT
ATKINS HAVE PROMOTED BIG FAT LIES?
by Gregory Ellis, PhD, CNS

WHAT IF IT'S ALL BEEN A BIG FAT LIE? This was the title
of an article published by the New York TIMES SUNDAY
MAGAZINE on July 7, 2002, authored by Gary Taubes.
Taubes contends that, after more than 30-years of
attack by the American medical Establishment, the well-
known champion of the low-carbohydrate diet, Dr. Robert
Atkins, may have been right after all. Further, he
argues, it may be the medical Establishment's own
dietary recommendation to eat less fat and more
carbohydrates that's actually the root cause of the
burgeoning obesity epidemic that has a strangle-hold on
the American population.

There are many important issues surrounding this
debate. The first, and most important, one concerns the
SOLITARY focus on DIET COMPOSITION as the primary
factor undergirding the obesity and overweight
epidemic. A second issue is the majority opinion that
a high consumption of dietary fat is the cause of
obesity. This second point, however, must not be viewed
in isolation because it's also the majority opinion
that fat and its associated components such as
cholesterol are the primary cause of the so-called
heart disease epidemic. We must, therefore, keep at the
forefront of our thinking the fact that fat has been
implicated as the cause of both epidemics. As a result
of this belief, DIET COMPOSITION tops the list of
factors that contribute to the increased rates of both
obesity and heart disease.

In 2002, the "fat-theory-as-cause" of these two
conditions is being discredited. Comfort-desiring
Americans found solace in the idea that our medical and
scientific specialists had uncovered the cause of these
two conditions. Although it's a widely held belief that
fat is an evil and deadly substance, the public
remained confused as to the best methods to control
their ever-expanding waistlines. Clearly, they were
comfortable with the idea that eating less fat was
heart-protective, but the failure of low-fat foods to
solve their weight control problem proved that
something was very wrong about what it took to control
bodyweight.

Acknowledgement of these observations is a recent
phenomenon: Interested observers are beginning to
question the supposed efficacy of the low-fat
eating recommendations after 30 years of our national
experiment with low-fat eating. Some have surmised, as
does Gary Taubes, that the rise in obesity meshes quite
well with the beginning of the low-fat experiment. More
importantly, and the very basis of his article, is the
fact that some of our medical elite have also made this
same observation: obesity may, in some way, be partly
related to low-fat eating.

Dr. Robert Atkins' rise to fame began with his
publication in 1972 of DR. ATKINS DIET REVOLUTION.
His book met with much criticism from the scientific
and medical Establishments, but the public gobbled it
up in spite of the harsh criticism. He has been much
maligned by the scientific and medical Establishments
since then, and these attacks are no less vicious today
than they were in 1972. But, the cracks in the walls
are getting deeper, and according to reports, Atkins
has been asked to speak at several major medical
schools about his findings.

But, as you'll soon see, the Atkins approach is as
seriously flawed as the low-fat diet, but for
different physiological reasons.


WHAT CONTRIBUTION HAS TAUBES' ARTICLE MADE TO THE
DEBATE?

What has Taubes' article accomplished? Well, it
certainly flushed out the talking heads. The proponents
of all the different dietary schools of thought have
voiced their concerns. There's Dr. Dean Ornish, the
vegetarian zealot, who pontificates that eating pork
rinds and sausage is dietary suicide. Dr. Andrew Weil,
champion of the high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet program,
shares with the world his contrarian view concerning
the low-carbohydrate regimen despite the fact that he's
so fat it should be obvious to anyone that he can't
make a real contribution to the dialogue.

Taubes' article did nothing to change anybody: in fact,
it solidified each "expert's" position because these
people can't possibly ever admit that they were wrong.
We'd all know, then, that they hadn't done their
homework and that they were largely ignorant of the
facts that underlie obesity.

More important, however, is the fact that the article
dragged the American people out of their comfort zone,
dispelling their belief that it had all been figured
out for them. Now they're concerned that we really
don't know what's going on and that our unchallenged
reliance on medicine and science may have been
misguided. So a number of fundamental, cherished
beliefs are now tarnished, and people just don't know
what to do. Everyone's getting fatter, and even if
people aren't overweight, many have too much fat on
their bodies, and too little muscle, making for an
unsightly and uncomfortable appearance. So, if people
were confused before, with all the hundreds, indeed
thousands, of weight control opinions buzzing around,
they're even more confused now with the release of
Taubes' paradigm-shifting article.

In the aftermath of the article, web chat rooms and
forums were besieged with cries for help. The news
media scrambled to set up interviews with anyone who
had an opinion. Unceasing chatter filled people's
discourse and minds. Everyone was trying to figure out
what it all meant. Unbelievably, the article has
elevated the issue to one of the top news items of the
day. But more importantly, it demonstrates how
thoroughly confused everyone is about what to do about
bodyweight regulation. The single-minded focus on DIET
COMPOSITION as the controlling factor in overweight and
obesity obscures all the more important factors in
seeking workable solutions to weight control. And no
one, not the media, not the "expert" interviewees, have
derailed the attempt to keep us focused on DIET
COMPOSITION which plays only a minor role in bodyweight
regulation. The failure to move DIET COMPOSITION from
center stage seriously hampers finding effective
strategies people can use to reach their goals.

It's clear that people have been, and are, unable to
control their bodyweight, no matter what diet they
follow, Atkins' diet included.

They're lost souls because nothing they have done
works; they just keep getting fatter or fail to lose
any weight when they try. Taubes' article, therefore,
opened Pandora's box, raising, as it did, more
questions, yet, at the same time, providing few answers
or solutions. So, now it boils down to a few renegade
physicians, scrambling off the sinking ship, slipping
and sliding on a deck greased with the failed remains
of the low-fat dogma. The renegade doctors and
scientists became renegades because they were among the
very few who actually did what doctors are supposed to
do: they observed. They saw colleagues losing weight
when following Atkins' low-carbohydrate diet even
though they had trashed the man for more than 30 years.
One doctor was quoted as saying that he paid no
attention to Atkins because he, and all his colleagues,
thought that he was a "jerk."

The U.S. government never funded studies to look at the
low-carbohydrate diet. Now, Taubes tells us, it's
willing to provide such funding because of pressure
from the renegade doctors. Interestingly, when the
renegades talk openly to their fellow physicians, who
are still faithful to the low-fat regimen, they are
shouted-down because, again, to admit misunderstanding
and a lack of knowledge isn't a common characteristic
of medical doctors.

Everyone has an opinion but, despite that fact, it
seems that there's a profound shortage of knowledge and
facts about what is involved in controlling one's
weight and, in particular, the role that DIET
COMPOSITION plays. Now, it seems that some, still only
a few, researchers want to test the Atkins diet, and
other versions of low-carbohydrate diets, a desire
shared by a group of other low-carbohydrate supporters.

Having dissed the low-carbohydrate diet for more than
30 years, these doctors now propose studying it!

Unfortunately, they don't have the training, or
experience, or slightest clue as to the sort of
questions that should be asked in designing the
studies. They're wholly ignorant of the volumes of
existing scientific literature that are already
available, literature that addresses many of the
questions they're asking. They want to do it all over
again as if it hasn't already been done. But it has.

And to whom are they turning for guidance? None other
than the redoubtable Dr. Robert Atkins.

Is this a good choice? That answer is easy. No. In
fact, it's a very poor choice. Why? Because it's
clear that many people fail to achieve bodyweight
regulation when following the Atkins version of the
low-carbohydrate diet. Some succeed, but that number
represents only a small percentage of all those who
have followed this regimen.

You didn't know this? Just visit any of the low-
carbohydrate chat rooms. Or talk to colleagues at work
-- or people you meet at social functions. Millions
have tried the Atkins plan. And many millions have
failed to lose weight or to lose as much weight as
they've wanted. What's the main complaint? They all say
it: it's the Plateau in losing weight where weight loss
simply ceases. No matter how much they cut their carbs,
no matter how much they try to stay in ketosis (Atkins'
magic land of weight loss success), they can't do it.
Ketosis also stops, along with the weight loss,
somewhere around weeks 3-5 of the plan. If they're one
of the fortunate 25%, they lose some weight, but even
these people reach a Plateau, stalled in
their efforts to lose more weight. They have no
idea what to do about it, and Atkins' solutions
simply don't work, despite his claims that they do.


WHAT IS AT THE APEX OF BODYWEIGHT REGULATION?

What, then, is at the apex of bodyweight regulation?
One thing and One thing Only: the much-maligned
calorie. Now, that seems rather simple doesn't it? You
may even have heard about this calorie thing
already. But, I'll tell you: It's not simple. It's very
complex, and if you don't understand every aspect of
calorie control, you're doomed. The secret resides,
therefore, in the balance between the calories you
consume and the calories you burn. I call this the
Energy Balance Equation. I understand its complexities,
and I'll teach them to you. When I do, your confusion
will melt like butter in a hot pan. I can make you an
expert in the nuances of bodyweight regulation. And
quickly.

There's simply no question about the "factness" of this
Law regarding the calorie. It's the Law of Nature.
And no one can get away with breaking Mother
Nature's Laws. It's worse than trying to cheat on
your taxes, trying to get away with breaking the Laws
of Mother Nature. Don't bother mounting an argument
against them because you'll lose.

OK, if it's this simple, why then is everyone so
confused? Because it has never been made clear that
this is the One and Only Fact you must first know
before you try anything else. You've been hoodwinked
into believing that DIET COMPOSITION is the most
important factor in bodyweight regulation. Taubes'
article only reinforces that notion, further clouding
truth-seeking. You can now easily see the myopia in all
the competing camps because DIET COMPOSITION has
been their focus, one way or another, for decades.
There has been no effort to prioritize the facts
involved in the successful regulation of bodyweight.

Does the low-carbohydrate diet work? Yes. Do I support
a low-carbohydrate diet? Yes, but only the correct
version. Why does it work? It works for one reason and
one reason only: It reduces food consumption, thereby
reducing calorie intake. It adheres to the Laws of
Nature. Does this automatic reduction in food
intake work for everyone? Absolutely not. Why? I don't
know.

It works in varying degrees: in some, it reduces
food intake significantly, and in others, not at all.
Then it fails. But, no matter what, DIET COMPOSITION
and the low-carbohydrate diet are only part of what I
call the 100% Weight Loss and Weight Control Solution.

Why does one stall-out in his weight loss when
following the Atkins version -- and also the others --
of the low-carbohydrate diet? Because as one loses
weight, his calorie needs decrease, so he must eat less
to continue losing or to maintain the new, lower
bodyweight. And the decreasing calorie needs gradually
overcome the ability of the low-carbohydrate diet to
reduce food intake automatically. At this juncture, the
individual must be acutely aware of his calorie intake
and reduce food consumption so that weight loss can
proceed. I detail this whole process in my chapters
about DIET COMPOSITION and in my DR. ELLIS'S 100/100
PLAN and in Dr. Ellis's version of the low-carbohydrate
diet.

I have counseled Atkins' failures for more than 10
years, and this is no small number. Our Establishment
weight loss experts, whose own dietary advice has
failed, now propose siding with Atkins, whose dietary
advice also has failed. Even if a fairy godmother
tapped these doctors on the head with her smart-stick,
50 years from now they'd undoubtedly know little more
than they know today because they have no experience
and no knowledge of any of this. They simply don't
even know what questions to ask; that's why they're
blindly turning to Atkins. And Atkins is grinning like
a Cheshire cat. But he shouldn't be because he's wrong
too.


SO BOTH STANCES HAVE BEEN BIG FAT LIES.

The docs are just as confused as the public. They'll
study the low-carbohydrate diet to death, something
that has already been done, and they'll come up with
more incorrect theories and misinformation, just as
they did when they bought into the low-fat diet scam in
the first place -- all because they don't know what
they're doing.

Why, indeed, would you expect anything else? They
couldn't figure it out in the last half-century, so
what changes have occurred that will make comprehension
happen today? Taubes' and the renegade medical doctors'
observations suggest that low-fat eating is partly
responsible for the overweight epidemic. Does it follow
then that we should hand over the responsibility of
determining which dietary regimen is the better one to
the same medical Establishment that gave us the false
recommendations in the first place? This institution
took more than 30 years to make the INESCAPABLE
OBSERVATION that the low-fat diet is implicated in
weight gain. Now, how long will it take them to
discover this same truth, not just by observation, but
by Science, and, then, arrive at some conclusions about
the physiological and biochemical processes involved? I
argue that they simply will not be able to do it under
any circumstance, particularly if they base their
initial studies on the fatally flawed version of the
low-carbohydrate diet that Atkins has had on the table
for the last 30 years.

The science has been around for more than fifty years.
The low-carbohydrate diet was exhaustively studied,
particularly by Dr. John Yudkin, who published his
seminal paper back in 1960, having found the same
thing that the more recent studies are finding.

Why must we repeat studying what we already know?

Now, if you want, you can wait around until this new
group of scientists, who haven't studied the
historical records, perform the same research all over
again, or, better yet, you can read all about it now:
every last detail and piece of information that
you need and want. You can end the confusion
immediately. And this includes our scientists too
because I've pulled it all together for them as
well. Do you want to wait or...

do you want it today?


I have written 600 pages of SOLUTIONS. Why me? I got
fat, really fat, at age 12. I spent the next 43 years
of my life researching every aspect of how the body,
itself, regulates its weight. And do you know what I
discovered? Everything. I learned it all. And I can
tell you accurately, precisely, and exactly how you can
succeed. You see, bodyweight is governed by the Laws of
Nature, and we all must obey these inviolate Laws -- or
we're doomed to fail.

What is the Fatal Flaw in the Atkins version of the
low-carbohydrate diet? Atkins denies the Law of Nature
and, instead, claims that the calorie theory is a myth,
exalting carbohydrates as the primary regulator of
bodyweight. This notion leads to many flaws in his
program's design. His success, limited as it is, has
been achieved because of the powerful effect that
carbohydrate reduction has on reducing food intake.


WHAT DOES BIOCHEMISTRY HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

Taubes tells us about the growth in the understanding
of Endocrinology 101, a term coined by Harvard
researcher David Ludwig. It's Ludwig's contention that
Endocrinology 101 was poorly understood during the
1960's when the whole anti-fat dogma was fueled by the
belief that fat was the cause of heart disease. In
conflict with Ludwig's argument, however, is the
historical fact that Endocrinology 100 (which
preceded 101 by about 100 years) was all very well
worked out by 1960. Therefore, all the elemental
science was in place for those scientists who might
have chosen to read it and, hence, we could have
avoided the decisions that have taken the country down
the wrong road for the last 40 years.

Important to any discussion about DIET COMPOSITION is
the understanding, well-known already by 1960 and first
discovered in 1852, that carbohydrates turn-on a
process in the body in which they are rapidly converted
to body fat. Carbohydrates have been the darling of
nutrition scientists for decades. It was believed, and
still is today, that carbohydrates are the primary
source of fuel for all of the organs and tissues of the
body. In fact, as late as 1966, many researchers
believed that carbohydrates provided 100% of the fuel
needs of exercising muscle. We know now, in 2002, that
80% of the fuel requirements in resting man are
supplied by fat and that 75% or more of the fuel needs
of exercising muscles are supplied by fat. As I've
said, the fact that carbohydrates are rapidly converted
to body fat was known by 1960, and it was also known
that eating fat, and no carbohydrates, abolishes
entirely the process that leads to increases in body
fat stores. But no one seemed to read the papers,
certainly not those who were responsible for dictating
public dietary policy.

The low-carbohydrate diet has a long history, dating
back to the early 1800's. It had been trotted-out
publicly by the 1920's and was introduced nationally
on a very large scale during the 1950's as the Dupont
diet because Dr. Alfred Pennington introduced it to the
corpulent executives of the Dupont company in
Wilmington, Delaware. It was highly publicized in
HOLIDAY magazine and picked up the moniker of the
HOLIDAY diet. By the time Atkins wrote his book, the
diet had been used for decades.

Where did Atkins go wrong in damning the calorie
theory? Well, we need a little more history to get that
answer. It has been well-known for 150 years, at least,
that man is held accountable by the Laws of
Thermodynamics, the Laws of Conservation of Energy.
This, of course, is the Energy Balance Equation:
calories in vs. calories out. Nutritionists have long
accepted the calorie theory, and to help them
understand the causes of obesity, they gathered
information about what people ate and how much physical
activity they performed. Interestingly, the self-
reports of the overweight and obese indicated that they
didn't eat more food than normal weight people. So the
idea arose that obese people had a metabolic defect, a
disease. Do you think this made a confusing situation
even more confusing? You bet it did.

Around 1983, Dr. Dale Schoeller, of the University of
Wisconsin, really threw a monkey wrench into the wheels
of obesity-theories by introducing a new technique,
doubly-labeled water: a method that allows scientists
to accurately measure people's calorie burn over a
period of several weeks. Extensive studies were
undertaken using the doubly-labeled water technique
after about 1990. It was inarguably discovered that the
obese didn't, in fact, require the same number of
calories as their normal weight counterparts. What was,
in fact, discovered is that they burned MORE calories
and that calorie burning was related to bodyweight. The
results of these studies trashed at least 75 years of
nutritional scientific findings, as well as existing
theories. These facts, of course, invalidate the
nonsense spewing out of the mouth of Kevin Trudeau, the
infomercial salesman selling Atkins' video tapes.
Trudeau tells us, with great aplomb, the "fact" that
thin people can eat all that they want, while fat
people, eating the same amount, keep gaining. This is
why confusion reigns: People with no training,
infomercial salesmen, and doctors too, spew endless
amounts of misinformation every day and in every way.

It's now known that all people tend to under-report how
much food they eat by a whopping 20-50%! They also
over-report their physical activity by about 50%. This
is what caused Atkins to reject the calorie theory.
He'd ask his new clients what they ate, and they, in
turn, under-reported the amount they ate, and he
believed them. In my book, I detail Atkins'
misunderstandings through an exhaustive analysis of his
faulty beliefs.

Atkins would put the client on a low-carbohydrate diet
of a known calorie content, which was higher in
calories than the amount the subject REPORTED that he
consumed previously. Thus, he developed his idea of
"Metabolic Advantage," his belief that a low-
carbohydrate diet allowed its followers to lose weight
while consuming more food than those on mixed diets.
This, of course, is a mistaken assumption.

We can calculate people's calorie needs based on
formulas because we are not very different from one
another. There's no such thing as a "fast" or "slow"
metabolism despite what most people believe. Calorie
needs are based on body size and on the amount of
physical activity we perform; it's that simple.

What of the low-carbohydrate diet? I detail all of this
in my grand opus, Dr. Gregory Ellis's ULTIMATE DIET
SECRETS. In short, carbohydrates are converted to body
fat; they're not the preferred fuel of the body's
tissues, and they do send a signal to the body to store
this fuel as fat. The main hormonal signal for this is
a shift in the ratio of the two pancreatic hormones,
glucagon and insulin. Most authorities implicate
insulin as the primary driver of this process, but it
is, rather, the digested carbohydrate itself, glucose
or blood sugar, that drives this process. In fact,
there's a whole metabolic shift that occurs in the body
under the influence of carbohydrate eating that turns
the body into a highly efficient fat-making plant, even
down to an increase in the genes that manufacture the
enzymes responsible for converting carbohydrate fuel
into fat.

And what happens to appetite and hunger when
carbohydrates are converted to fat? The blood is
cleared of fuel, and the "active" tissues, denied fuel,
send a feeding signal to the brain that drives
appetite. The result? Overeating. This is what I call
starvation in the face of obesity -- both processes
occurring simultaneously. More about this shortly.


IS DIET COMPOSITION THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN
BODYWEIGHT REGULATION?

Taubes attempts to reconcile some of the other issues
that may underlie the obesity epidemic. But, here
again, we get more questions than answers. He
interviewed Dr. William Dietz, who runs the nutrition
division of the Centers for Disease Control, about the
role of too little physical activity in the etiology of
obesity. Dietz denies a relationship and points to the
increase in "leisure exercise mania" that has occurred
since about 1970, citing that this apparent increase in
daily physical activity did nothing to stop the
burgeoning increase in weight gain. This suggested to
him that physical activity isn't implicated as a cause
of the obesity epidemic. He doesn't understand,
however, that, as leisure exercise increased, total
daily physical activity decreased to an even larger
extent so that total daily calorie burning is less now
than it was 30 years ago. This is a process that's been
on-going in the increasingly-mechanized Western nations
ever since the end of World War II.

Most scientists have concluded that the obesity
epidemic is LARGELY a function of the decrease in daily
physical activity and that it has little to do with
food intake. But what they don't know is that the
decrease in physical activity, itself, has a direct
impact on food intake because inactive people fail to
achieve an intake of food that adjusts itself downward
so as to match their decreased physical activity. This
is the case because a too-low level of physical
activity actually drives people to eat more food than
they really need. This extremely important but little-
known fact was discovered more than 50 years ago by
Dr. Jean Mayer. Recently Dr. Dale Schoeller has re-
validated Mayer's research by using doubly-labeled
water, a technique far more sophisticated than the
tools available to Dr. Mayer in the 1950's.

Unfortunately, current-day scientists consistently
miss the actual contribution of DIET COMPOSITION to the
obesity and over-fat epidemic because they have
universally bought into all the beliefs that "sanctify"
the low-fat dogma. This is scientific Reductionism at
its grandest -- and worst.

I discuss these details extensively in ULTIMATE DIET
SECRETS. As a side note, Dr. Dale Schoeller supports
the idea that decreased physical activity is one of the
main causes of the obesity epidemic. Dr. William Dietz,
as we've observed, has denied this relationship. Since
Dr. Dietz and Dr. Schoeller have co-authored scientific
papers, it's surprising that Dietz is unaware of
Schoeller's research. It's noteworthy that Dietz has
also used the doubly-labeled water technique in his
studies. So even at the level of the scientist, there's
mass confusion, and Taubes is unable to provide any
resolution because he's a journalist and must rely
solely on the opinions of those he interviews. And
those opinions do nothing to provide answers to the
public's dilemma. I am a scientist, and because of my
many years' investigation into every aspect of
bodyweight regulation, I can clear the air because this
is what I have spent 43 years studying -- and doing.


THE FAT THEORY OF HEART DISEASE

The fat theory of heart disease was first proposed in
1953 by Dr. Ancel Keys of the University of Minnesota.
Keys' study was a study in scientific skulduggery
because it was later uncovered that his data didn't
reflect the facts about the relationship between diet
and heart disease. Soon after the release of Keys'
findings, many scientists showed that the fat theory of
heart disease was false and untrue. Their research and
evidence, however, didn't stop the burgeoning
juggernaut led, largely, by the American Heart
Association's fueling of the fire. Keys' study,
however, still serves as the Rock of Gibraltar for the
proponents of the fat theory of heart disease. After
two decades of on-going research, Dr. George Mann
declared irrevocably that "Saturated fat and
cholesterol in the diet are not the cause of coronary
heart disease. That myth is the greatest scientific
deception of this century, perhaps of any century."

Taubes was able to uncover these shenanigans because
the facts about the invalidity of the fat theory
of heart disease are well covered in the scientific
literature, not hidden behind locked doors like
information about the Kennedy assassination. Taubes
says, "The case was eventually settled not by science
but by politics."

False as it is, the fat theory of heart disease came
to be closely associated with the idea that fat causes
obesity.

The public was never fully informed as to the
logic behind decreasing dietary fat as that
logic was understood by nutritionists. Fat contains
9 calories per gram; and carbohydrates contain less
than half that amount, 4 calories per gram. The
promoters of reducing fat intake reasoned that people
would reduce their calorie intake by 50% if they
substituted carbohydrates for fat. But it didn't work.
The take-home message for the people was that fat,
itself, made one fat. In a too simplistic sense, they
came to the notion that the fat eaten becomes,
directly, fat on one's body. This, of course, was in
direct conflict with the scientific fact that few knew:
it's actually carbohydrates that turn to fat. Fat,
when eaten with few carbohydrates, provides the
necessary calories and fuel for the active tissues,
thereby reducing food intake. Carbohydrates drive an
increased food intake because they are stored as fat,
which eliminates the availability of their calories
and fuel to the active tissues. The tissues, at that
point, are starving and do what they need to do to get
the fuel they want: They tell the feeding centers of
the brain to send out hunger signals so that the animal
(the human being) will follow his in-born Biological
drives and get some food. Unfortunately, the now-
educated animal eats carbohydrates and sets into motion
a vicious cycle of getting fat in the face of
starvation. What a Biological catastrophe.

Scientists, specializing in the study of what drives
appetite and hunger, have convincingly shown that we
don't eat for the number of calories that go into the
mouth: appetite and hunger are controlled by fuel
availability. Food that's stored (carbohydrates stored
as fat) is no longer available to be burned. We must
then eat more to provide fuel to the active tissues.
This desire to eat is a Biological drive and is not
easily overcome by Willpower. Plus, people have been
taught that hunger signals must be obeyed. Of course,
if the food you're eating is stored as fat, hunger
signals arising from the depletion of fuel in the blood
will spell disaster for bodyweight regulation. This
process is profoundly turned-on in people who have lost
weight, making it difficult for them to avoid "weight
gain relapse." And when the body is actively converting
carbohydrates into fat, any ingested fat gets carried
along for the ride into fat storage in the fat cells.
This storage of fat as fat, however, doesn't easily
occur when the diet is carbohydrate-reduced. So, it's
actually a mixed diet of carbohydrate and fat, the
"super-market diet," that drives weight gain, and the
real culprit is the carbohydrate, not the fat, because
carbohydrates create a nutritional and hormonal
environment that sets the stage for fuel storage as
fat. Fat merely piggy-backs along (via some complicated
enzymatic changes in the fat and muscle cells) for the
ride into fat storage because the fat-making and fat-
storage machinery are revved up into a high gear. Most
people's low-fat diets contain enough fat and
carbohydrate to qualify as a "super-market" diet.

In a recent survey I conducted, I discovered that 70%
of the people I polled believed that fat was more of an
issue in bodyweight regulation than calories. A fatal
misunderstanding! So Americans were granted a license
to eat all the low-fat food that they wanted. And they
did, decreasing, at the same time, how much they moved.

One could not have a more deadly prescription.

And the Atkins plan? Why does it fail so miserably?
For the same reason that the low-fat diet fails. He
grants people a license to eat all the protein and fat
foods that they want as long as they restrict
carbohydrates. Will this work? It works a little
better than the low-fat protocol but still not very
well. One group says, "Eat all you want of this food
type." Another says, "Eat all you want of this other
food type." You just can't eat whatever you want
because you must match what you eat to what you burn in
order to stay in calorie and bodyweight balance. I
teach special techniques that help people control
these processes.

Since bodyweight regulation is controlled by the Laws
of Nature, adherence to those Laws guarantees 100%
success rates. This is what I call Dr. Gregory Ellis's
100% Weight Loss and Weight Control Solution. If you do
what I recommend, you cannot fail.

In summary, Gary Taubes' article does nothing to allay
the confusion; it only adds to it. He must rely on what
he believes is expert opinion; in fact, however, it is
little more than misinformation. Misinformation,
needless to say, triggers only more questions, not
answers. He tells us that it all "may be settled sooner
rather than later and we might have some long-awaited
answers as to why we grow fat and whether it is indeed
preordained by societal forces or by our choices of
foods." And he places his faith for the uncovering of
the answers in the very same doctors who failed to
figure it out during the last 40 years. How does he
expect doctors, who had no clue for 40 years, to
become enlightened -- all of a sudden?

He's wrong, of course; we have all the answers right
now. I wrote them all in my book, ULTIMATE DIET
SECRETS. And I, unlike my scientific brethren, knew
what questions to ask because I have personally done
everything there is to do in the bodyweight regulation
game. After I solved my own obesity problem, I decided
to develop a good physique. But to do that I had to go
the extra mile because developing a good physique means
paying exquisite attention to details.

So as our scientists plunge into a study of the
flawed Atkins' program, little new light will be shed
on bodyweight regulation because Atkins disavows the
Energy Balance Equation. It'll take them at least ten
years to figure out the flaws in the Atkins' plan, and
then, instead of realizing that the problem is directly
related to the faultiness of Atkins' basic premise,
they'll blame the low-carbohydrate diet and, thus, send
us all off on another 20 years of wild goose chasing.

There's no longer any need, however, to wait for the
answers people need. Every single one of them is
already written in the pages of my book. We need no
further studies; and we don't need to wait 40 more
years to get the information that's available today.

Gregory Ellis, PhD
Certified Nutrition Specialist
July 23, 2002
www.ultimatedietsecrets.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Janeydi]

Speaking of infomercials! ;)

[Kristine]

Heh heh... yeah. He had me up until: Now, if you want, you can wait around until this new group of scientists (...) perform the same research all over again, or, better yet, you can read all about it now: (...) I have written 600 pages of SOLUTIONS..."

I agree with his opinion that calories *do* count, but I disagree with his discrediting of the Atkins program because Dr A. supposedly says you can eat all the protein and fat you want. I read DANDR, and I don't remember reading that part. I remember it being more like, "eat until you are satisfied but not stuffed." Eating like that, I barely get *enough* calories in, let alone too many.

>>"There's no such thing as a "fast" or "slow" metabolism despite what most people believe. "

What?! I'd really like to know what he means by that. I've *dieted* my way to slow metabolism. I wasn't *imagining* the icy cold hands and feet, the blue fingernails, the low blood pressure and heart rate, constantly being cold and tired... And hasn't he ever heard of hypothyroidism?

Still interesting, though. Might be a good read if it's ever at my library.

[suze_c]

I read almost all of this guys' spiel, until I got to the part that said that there is NO SUCH THING as a fast or slow metabolism,...then I had to stop... Ok Mr.-Know-It-All, if caloric intake is SUCH a factor in weight gain, then why don't you explain to me how my son, who is 22 yrs. old, 5 foot 9 inches tall, who has cerebral palsy does NOT, and I repeat NOT GAIN WEIGHT EVEN EATING A CALORIC LEVEL OF 4,000-5,000 calories PER DAY!!!
Go ahead... try to explain that... he has seen nutritionists, and dieticians, and doctors, and none of them can give an answer to it. He is unable to walk,unless with assistance,can get off of couches and chairs by himself, and can crawl by himself, but has no high amount of activity in any given day... I have been told that those with cerebral palsy have a 25% higher metabolic rate than most do... and oh yeah, by the way.... if there is no such thing as metabolism making a difference in the way that someone loses weight, then why is it when someone raises their metabolism by: 1.) eating, and/or 2.) exercise, and/or 3.) drugs.... how is it then, that those people then lose weight? HHmmm something to think about isn't it? I am sure going to send this Mr. Ellis an email regarding this article as soon as I am done reading it... and I am going to ask him the very same question that I asked here.

[Kristine]

Hi Suze! Maybe you could ask if he'd mind if you post his answer to this board. I'd be curious.

Though I'm always interested in reading debate over Atkins and LC; so far, he's made too many generalizations that are inaccurate. I'm doubting that this gentleman, though knowledgable, has much new information to offer.

<i>Edit:</i> ...but at least he's good looking. :D Check out his website.

[suze_c]

I contacted the dude alright... I pasted into my e-mail, what I posted in here... and as far as looks.... hmmm he has muscles, but he looks too similiar to Rick Flair in a few of his photos for my liking :p I am VERY curious to see what kind of reply that I am going to get on this.... if I get any at all! and IF there is a reply, I will be sure to put it in here!

[MrFrumble]

Once I saw the words DIET COMPOSITION in all caps for the 3rd time I knew this guy was about to try to sell me something.

Got to give him credit though for riding the wave in his quest for profits.

[rjakubin]

After reading the information on his site, my first impression was that he discovered Leptin. It's not that much different than what and how Par Deus attempts to explain weight loss plateus.

[mrfreddy]

this where he lost me:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Millions
have tried the Atkins plan. And many millions have
failed to lose weight or to lose as much weight as
they've wanted. What's the main complaint? They all say
it: it's the Plateau in losing weight where weight loss
simply ceases. No matter how much they cut their carbs,
no matter how much they try to stay in ketosis (Atkins'
magic land of weight loss success), they can't do it.
Ketosis also stops, along with the weight loss,
somewhere around weeks 3-5 of the plan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


isnt it true that everyone on any kind of diet goes through plateaus? And isn't it true that if you stick with the lo-carb plan, that MOST people eventually come out of their plateau? So, this guy is bascially LYING, isn't he? Or he is simply misinformed, at best.

And a blowhard too! I just skimmed the rest, to discover he is trying to sell something. I suspected as much when he kept referring to DIET COMPOSITION repeatedly and out of context...

I also like how he tries to keep an objective, scientific tone, but seems to slip here and there. That "rats off the sinking ship" bit was a clinker!

[Angeline]

Very interesting article, especially the first part relating how Gary Taube shook up the establishment and basically opened people's eyes to the fact no one really knows what they are talking about.

Where he lost me however is where he said, forget everything you have you learned and turn to me, poor lost souls, I have all the answers. That kind of attitude always turns me off.

He dismisses infomercials, yet he sounds exactly like one. He seems to have good things to say, yet his dismissive attitude towards any method that isn't his takes away from his credibility in my eyes. He sounds like a salesman.

He should learn to stop bashing other people and simply promote his own approach with less arrogance. Time will prove him right..........or wrong.

[Gregory]

He's dumb, arrogant, condescending, a salesman, so much detritus. Yes, I know, I know but thanks all for reminding me.

Anyway, I didn't want to let any of you down so here is the answer I posted back to my one detractor who believed for sure I wouldn't post.

I'm also curious as to how many of you responded to Taubes article. Did you go after him too? Interesting responses, very much as I expected. But anyway, ya gotta have fun in life.



Thank you for your supportive note.

I can only assume that you have no training in nutrition and therefore an extensive explanation about what you refute to be the known Laws of Thermodynamics is beyond the scope of an email. However, if you want the complete details on this subject, then I would refer you to my book or you could undertake a detailed exploration of the extant scientific literture on the subject of metabolic rates. I'd start my study using keywords in the PubMed database which you can access through any serach engine. Use "metabolism," "calorimeter," "doubly labeled water," and "metabolic rate." Also study the work by Dr. Dale Schoeller and Dr. Susan Jebb.

I don't make this stuff up. This is what one learns in a 43-year study of the subject of nutrition.

It was clearly the point of my piece to point out how everyone is so confused and you fully confirm my ascertation that this is the case.

I took it upon myself, however, for your benefit, to do a quick search for you in the scientific literature to see what we scientists know about cerebral palsy and resting metabolic rate and total daily energy expenditure. This is some of what turned up.

: J Am Diet Assoc 1997 Sep;97(9):966-70 Related Articles, Links


Total energy expenditure in adults with cerebral palsy as assessed by doubly labeled water.

Johnson RK, Hildreth HG, Contompasis SH, Goran MI.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington 05405,
USA.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize total energy expenditure (TEE) in free-living adults with cerebral palsy (CP) using the doubly labeled water technique, and to determine those physiologic variables and characteristics of CP that were markers of TEE in adults with CP. DESIGN: TEE was measured using the doubly labeled water technique in 30 free-living adults with CP (12 women, 18 men). To determine the best markers of TEE, the following factors were examined: CP status, resting metabolic rate (RMR), anthropometric characteristics and body composition by means of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and skinfold thickness measurements, energy cost of leisure-time activities, and oral-motor impairment.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Means +/- standard deviations, t tests, Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficients, Spearman rank correlation coefficients, chi 2, stepwise multiple-correlation regression analysis, and analysis of covariance were used to examine the relationships among variables of interest.

RESULTS: TEE was highly variable in the sample (mean = 2,455 +/- 622 kcal/day for men and 1,986 +/- 363 kcal/day for women). Stepwise regression analysis showed that TEE was best predicted in the sample by RMR, percentage body fat determined
by DXA, ambulation status, and sex (multiple R = .68, P = .003). When practical, easily measured variables were used, TEE was best predicted by height, ambulation status, percentage body fat by skinfold thickness measurements, and sex (multiple R = .61, P. = 018). The contribution of energy expended in physical activity to TEE was significantly higher in the ambulatory subjects than the nonambulatory subjects (25% vs 16%, respectively; P = .009). APPLICATIONS: The high degree of variability in
TEE, largely attributable to high interindividual variation in energy
expended in physical activity, makes it difficult to provide general
guidelines for energy requirements for adults with CP. Because ambulation status was an important predictor of TEE, it must be accounted for in estimating energy requirements in this population.

PMID: 9284872 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Am J Clin Nutr 1996 Oct;64(4):627-34 Related Articles, Links


Energy expenditure of children and adolescents with severe disabilities: a cerebral palsy model.

Stallings VA, Zemel BS, Davies JC, Cronk CE, Charney EB.

Division of Gastroenterology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. stallingsv~email.chop.edu

Spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy (SQCP) is a severe disability that is associated with abnormal physical activity, body composition, and food intake and with frequent malnutrition. This study examined the pattern of dietary intake, anthropometry, and energy expenditure in a group of subjects with SQCP aged 2-18 y and a normal control group. The energy expenditure
pattern was determined from resting energy expenditure (REE, n = 61 SQCP; n = 37 control group) by using indirect calorimetry and from total energy expenditure (TEE, n = 32 SQCP; n = 32 control group) by using the doubly labeled water method. Physical activity, including the chronic spasticity of SQCP, was estimated from the ratio of TEE to REE. Abnormal growth and body
composition were common and dietary intake was markedly overreported in the children with SQCP. Children with SQCP were divided according to body fat stores determined by triceps-skinfold-thickness measurements. The children
with low fat stores had a lower REE adjusted for fat-free mass compared with the SQCP and control groups with adequate fat stores. TEE was significantly lower for the SQCP group than for the control group. The ratio of TEE to REE, indicating energy for nonbasal needs, was significantly lower in the SQCP children than in the control group, with the adequately nourished SQCP
children having lower ratios than the more poorly nourished SQCP group. The nonbasal energy expenditure, such as for physical activity and spasticity, of children with SQCP was low. The nutrition-related growth failure and abnormal pattern of REE are likely related to inadequate energy intake.

Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995 Mar;76(3):281-3 Related Articles, Links


Caloric requirements of a spastic immobile cerebral palsy patient: a case report.

Taylor SB, Shelton JE.

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Eastern Virginia
Graduate School of Medicine, Norfolk 23507, USA.

This article documents the reduced caloric requirements for a spastic, immobile, cerebral palsy patient. We report an 11-year-old immobile, spastic, quadriparetic patient who remained obese despite receiving less than one half of the recommended basal caloric requirements for age. Basal metabolic rate was determined by indirect calorimetry using a Sensor Medics
2900 instrument. Standard reference sources indicate that an able-bodied 11-year-old child of comparable height requires 1,493 kcal/d for support of basal metabolic functions. Our patient was followed for 8 weeks on reduced calories and assessed for adequacy of diet by nitrogen balance studies and other appropriate parameters. Our data suggest that a subset of severely impaired children with cerebral palsy may require much less in total kilocalories per day for nutritional support than previous studies would indicate.

PMID: 7717823 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Pediatr Res 1991 Jan;29(1):70-7 Related Articles, Links


Body composition and energy expenditure in adolescents with cerebral palsy or myelodysplasia.

Bandini LG, Schoeller DA, Fukagawa NK, Wykes LJ, Dietz WH.

Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139.

We measured body composition, resting metabolic rate (RMR), and total energy expenditure (TEE) in a group of adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) and myelodysplasia (M) aged 13- to 20-y-old using indirect calorimetry and the doubly labeled water method. Fat-free mass (FFM), RMR, and TEE were significantly lower in both the CP and M groups than comparable easurements
in a control group of normal adolescent males and females. The ratio of TEE to RMR did not differ between controls and ambulatory M and CP subjects. However, TEE/RMR was significantly lower in the nonambulatory M and CP subjects than in controls (p less than 0.01). Our data indicate that energy
requirements are reduced in both populations because both FFM and activity are decreased. Although energy requirements were decreased in both groups, the relationships between FFM and body weight differed. FFM and body weight were significantly correlated with RMR only in the M group. These data suggest that the type of paralysis in a handicapped population may affect
resting energy expenditure.

PMID: 2000262 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

As you can see from the above, you are significantly over-reporting the number of calories that you are feeding your child. This is a common factor in human's belief systems. Just as humans under-report their food intake by 20-50%, you are similarly over-reporting what you are feeding your child.
Clearly, the metabolic needs for calories of those with cerebral palsy is significantly lower than the needs of the healthy and ambulatory.

It would be rather easy to locate a metabolic ward where you live or you could contact a company called www.healthetech.com and look for a fitness center or person who owns their BodyGem portable resting metabolic rate unit and then run this test at home on your child to confirm the above. It is simply impossible for what you say to be true. Impossible. We are all beholden to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Having these numbers in hand would assist you in making better choices for your child's health and welfare.

Sorry to burst your bubble of comfort, but there are known Laws in operation here and it is my argument that so many are being befuddled by misinformed souls.

It's facinating to me how staunchly those in error hold on to their beliefs in the face of a dissenting view. But, at this juncture, and with what I have presented above, your position is simply untenable in the light of an overwhelming amount of scientific research that's been going on for at least 150 years. And amazingly, I didn't do any of it. Must we then call all of these scientists "know-it-alls" too?

I describe all of these facts for you in my book Ultimate Diet Secrets. It also my contention that the vast majority of nutritionists, doctors, and dieticians are absolutely in the dark over this matter too, another point that you prove for me as well.

So, there is your answer. I have responded and I have answered because there is an answer. And I did all of this for in spite of the tone of your comments which I feel could have been presented in a far less adversarial manner. But that is the nature of the web I guess.

Dr. Gregory Ellis

[tamarian]

Hi Dr. Ellis,

I'm glad you joined us. I have posted the article, simply because it is of interest to low-carbers, and we're open to arguments on both sides, and use this forum to debate the merits of each.

We do monitor against personal attacks and flames here. Some members commented on the promotional aspects of the article, which I feel is a legitimate comment.

And if any member uses such terms as " dumb, arrogant, condescending" we would consider that a "flame" and the post would be removed, and membership suspendid due to violation of our user agreement. I'm glad this did not happen.

I planned on reading the article in depth and responding, if I have something of interest to say. This may take a while due to it's length.

However, I would like to point out that even though there are many medical references to the calorie theory, they erroneosly consider it from a thermodynamic aspect.

I can only assume that you have no training in nutrition and therefore an extensive explanation about what you refute to be the known Laws of Thermodynamics is beyond the scope of an email.

Doctors and nutritionists often ignore biochemistry.

If I fuel my truck with a low-fat diet, or low-carb diet, it won't run. If I fuel my self with unleaded fuel, I won't run (for long) either.

True, they cite study after study on thermodynamics and whatever the latest theory happens to be. Yet, they cannot explain why the Atkins Diet work, nor prove why they claim low-carb to be unhealthy.

I would think with thousands of years before carbs started creeping more and more into our diets, the burdon of proof would be on the low-carb nay sayers.

I still plan on reading it more details and possibly offer further comments.

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

I won't argue that calories ultimately matter, even on low carb. However...our bodies are more complex than people want to give credit for and there are a host of factors that ultimately determine what a good calorie level will be for each individual, including (but not limited to) hormone levels, activity levels and age. One size does not fit all.
What if....eating one way naturally made you burn more calories during an average day than another simply because your body had to work harder to break down those foods into energy and the metabolic pathways for doing so were less efficient than others? Wouldn't you be able to eat more calories eating this way, and still lose weight, than in another fashion where the metabolic pathways for breaking down those foods into energy were much more efficient and therefore less energy was wasted in the process of breaking chemical bonds?
I won't argue that low calorie diets work, but at what cost? And...how sustainable are they for the long haul? How easy (and realistic) is it to stick with a program when you are hungry and your body is crying out for food? Hunger is a very powerful drive and to expect people to override that drive consistantly is unrealistic at best.
I agree that many people have tried Atkins or other low carb programs and failed. Is this design flaw or operator error? Trying a program for a few weeks and giving up when the weight doesn't come off as fast as you'd like is very different from sticking with a program for a decent length of time (more than 3-5 weeks) and giving your body a chance to rest when it needs it.
I disagree with the statement that many (if not all) people stop losing weight after 3-5 weeks simply on low carb diets. My own experience (as well as hundreds of others here on this board) after 18 months on low carb has proven that to be false. Granted, I'm losing at a slow pace, but this isn't a race and I AM still losing. Plateaus and stalls are common in all forms of dieting, even starvation.
Then there's the issue of insulin resistance. High levels of carbs contribute to that problem and this has been demonstrated scientifically. Diabetes (which means you are insulin resistant by nature if you are a type 2) is reaching epidemic proportions both in the US and in other countries. Why? Apparently DIET COMPOSTION does matter for some, likely many and should be the main focus for people who have this medical problem. Okay....so carbs are a problem for those with insulin resistance. What does that leave? Low amounts of carbs in the form of low GI veggies, fruits and nuts, proteins and fats. Sounds like low carb to me.
One more thought...if low fat/low calorie diets work so well, why are people getting fatter following them? Design flaw or operator error?

[Gregory]

Thank you for your reply.

I want the forum people to understand that I am not opposed to the low-carbohydrate diet at all, I am only opposed to those versions that elevate carbohydrates to a position that is super-ordinate to calories in bodyweight regulation. This appears to be the position held by most writers about low-carbohydrate diets.

The low-carbohydrate diet works through one mechanism and one mechanism only and that is its tendency to reduce calorie consumption. This was all pointed out by Dr. John Yudkin in 1960, years before the appearance of the Atkins program.

It is also my argument that diet composition is not the most important factor in bodyweight regulation -- physical activity is. I am only taking on the role of teaching as I have more experience in these issues than anyone of whom I am aware.

I would argue with anyone who considers a 25-35% success rate from following a dietary regimen as something that "works." That is not working but failing when the possibility of success is 100% when following biological Laws that we are all held accountable to.

I take the position of trying to teach people how the body regulates its weight and have tried to remove the large amount of mythology surrounding this topic. I have also argued against the "Establishment" medical people for not understanding the basic biochemistry and physiology involved in bodyweight regulation, something Atkins has also failed to do. He simply fell into the low-carb diet and stopped trying to understand the whole process of bodyweight regulation and all aspects of it.

So what happens as one loses weight. Their calorie needs decrease and they must decrease their calorie intake or increase their expenditure or do a combination of both. This is just basic physiology that, unfortunately, few understand.

When I first did Atkins, following his recos to the letter, I gained five pounds. Gaining weight, not losing it, or not losing as much as one wants, is a feature of the low-carbohdrate diet plan offered by Atkins.

The low-carbohydrate diet can make a significant contribution to bodyweight regulation but it is not the most important factor. What it does do is reduce appetite and hunger and alter body composition in a somewhat favorable direction of fat loss and muscle gain.

Because one poster had the subjective experience of cold hands etc. does not invalidate the notion that we all have a predictable metabolic rate. That that rate DOES vary because of different factors WITHIN THAT INDIVIDUAL because of what he or she does does not invalidate the Laws of Thermodynamics, it only shows that a calorie consumed is a different beast than a calorie burned in the laboratory and that an INDIVIDUAL'S calorie needs vary as he changes. He can slow or up his metabolism a bit but this in no way remains if he returns to his previous state -- metabolism re-establishes itself. In normal healthy people at an average bodyweight there is no such thing as a SLOW or FAST metabolism, as I've said and now proven (on my very first day on the forum).

This was the purpose of my book: to explain why many of the observations made by people are real but also how to control what happens in the body when one tries to perturb it's homeostasis.

I find the unfounded comments made by posters rather fascinating, particularly the ones that say I am wrong. I assure you, I am not wrong, and if one would take the time to read my writing, they would find that I am not wrong and that there is a great deal of helpful information provided in my work.

I tell you exactly what is going on when Atkins works and tell you exactly what is happening when it doesn't. And many of you know it often does not work because you can read the posts of the people who fail on this very forum.

The body is controlled by Nature's Laws. They cannot be refuted. The Laws of Thermodynamics are irrefutable. They came before we did. They must be applied first and then the explanations for people's observations will be forthcoming.

I understand about forum rules and only want to discuss issues and try to remove personal assaults.

What I saw in response to the post of my piece looked very much like personal assaults. I consider someone calling me a "know-it-all" just as personally offensive as calling me an idiot or a jerk. There was no call for that type of comment. The poster could have just posed the question: How can you explain my observation? I would have been happy to explain and I even did although the tone of the response was not friendly.

As we found, the scientific research shows that parents of children with cerebral palsy over-report the child's food intake. The Laws of Thermodynamics hold, as they must. I believe that if this person now uses this objective information that she may be able to help her child more effectively. This is the purpose of good science and there is a lot of good science as well as bad science. I am only trying to take the subjective and make it more objective. I spent many years learning what I have learned and I had actually expected a more postive response from the people on this forum.

As to the so-called commercial nature of my piece -- I did not post it, I requested the forum to post it and they did. I did not spam anyone in any way. That piece was intended as a news release and it will be used in such a manner.

I am trying to get this country focused on the notion that it is not still a question of how to control our bodyweight. All of those factors are known but the medical community and people like Taubes, Ornish, Atkins, and Weil all spread some amount of misinformation. It doesn't have to be this way because there have been thousands of scientists who have explored these issues. I just happened to put it all between two book covers.

Because I know this stuff, does that make me a bad person, an arrogant one? Is anyone criticizing Charles Barkley's new book, I Might Be Wrong, But I Doubt It.

Why not read me before you criticize me. Sure, I want to sell books, don't we all want to sell something?

I'll be glad to respond to any questions any one has, but I only ask that they come to me in the right tone. I've been in flame wars before and I won't do them anymore.

Greg Ellis

[suze_c]

As you can see from the above, you are significantly over-reporting the number of calories that you are feeding your child. This is a common factor in human's belief systems. Just as humans under-report their food intake by 20-50%, you are similarly over-reporting what you are feeding your child.Clearly, the metabolic needs for calories of those with cerebral palsy is significantly lower than the needs of the healthy and ambulatory.
It is simply impossible for what you say to be true. Impossible. We are all beholden to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I READ THE TECHNICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR YOUR REASONING AND "THEN" I CAME TO THE SPOT WHERE YOU SAY I AM MISCALCULATING WHAT I FEED MY SON. SORRY DR. ELLIS, I KEEP A FOOD LOG OF WHAT MY SON EATS, AND EVERYTHING HE EATS IS KEPT IN THAT LOG, SO DO NOT GO TELLING ME THAT I AM MISCALCULATING WHAT HE IS EATING!! You think that your answer is SOOOOOO correct, and that EVERYONE must "fit the rule". Well, sir, there are exceptions to the rule, and it appears that my son is one of them, according to what you have tried to explain. And I did all of this for in spite of the tone of your comments which I feel could have been presented in a far less adversarial manner. But that is the nature of the web I guess As far as how I addressed my reply, if you were in my shoes, you might be aggravated as well. I did NOT resort to name calling I am SICK of doctors who think that they have all the answers regarding my son. Since he was younger, it took years, and I LITERALLY mean years for him to gain 30 lbs. of weight, and he ate EVERYTHING that was recommended for him, all the high cal, fattening foods, excess in calories... But oh right... it is *the mom's fault... she must not be writing everything down right, there muct be some miscalculation somewhere...right?* WRONG! I have been more than able to keep a food diary, and track of fat/protein/carbohydrates/sugars... you name it... I can count it! And furthermore, contrary to your belief, I AM FAMILIAR with the law of thermodynamics, and at this time, I am using that law to lose my excess weight. And I WILL look to see if there is anyone in our area, that has a "BodyGem portable resting metabolic rate unit " and get a reading from that, and I am truly hoping to be able to locate such a unit, for then Doctor, I will have the necessary information to PROVE you wrong in what you have said in regards to my son's daily caloric intake, and your insinuations that you say I am miscalculating his calories. Thank you for your e-mail. (For those on this forum, my fellow LC'ers, sorry if anyone considers the above post rude,as I was merely answering HIS ACCUSATIONS towards me, and it was also disrespectful, that he could not answer me in an e-mail. I am giving an exact copy of this post to his e-mail on his website.)

[tamarian]

The low-carbohydrate diet works through one mechanism and one mechanism only and that is its tendency to reduce calorie consumption.

That's another assumption, which ignore the biochemical aspects of ketosis..

I am only taking on the role of teaching as I have more experience in these issues than anyone of whom I am aware.

Actually, we have more experienced members here, Phd's, doctores, professional athletes, etc. You might want to do a search for Dr. Barry Groves, or check his site at:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk

It doesn't win your case by simply stating you're only willing to teach us, if you're not willing to learn.

I would argue with anyone who considers a 25-35% success rate from following a dietary regimen as something that "works."

I don't recall anyone claiming that. You have to realize members seek support while losing weight. You can find many past members who have reached their goasls.

I have lost 220 lbs to reach 100% doing Atkins. After thinking I can turn to a "normal" diet, rich in carbs, I have regained weight. Only Low-carb works for me.

I have also argued against the "Establishment" medical people for not understanding the basic biochemistry and physiology involved in bodyweight regulation, something Atkins has also failed to do. He simply fell into the low-carb diet and stopped trying to understand the whole process of bodyweight regulation and all aspects of it.

Well, at least Dr. Atkins lists a huge biblio section with scientific references to prove his theory. His opponents don't do that. Easy to figure why, I think.

When I first did Atkins, following his recos to the letter, I gained five pounds. Gaining weight

That's a common problem for those trying to lose weight, and follow a low-carb plan immediately after failing a low-calorie diet, and damaging their metabolism.

I find the unfounded comments made by posters rather fascinating, particularly the ones that say I am wrong. I assure you, I am not wrong, and if one would take the time to read my writing, they would find that I am not wrong and that there is a great deal of helpful information provided in my work.

From what I read so far, I agree, you are wrong. You are focusing on physiology from a thermodynic perspective. In my humble opinion, this is wrong,

I tell you exactly what is going on when Atkins works and tell you exactly what is happening when it doesn't. And many of you know it often does not work because you can read the posts of the people who fail on this very forum.

If you join any diet forum, you will find stories of people failing.

Try it, open a forum for people following your plan, you might find even more percetages of failure.

The body is controlled by Nature's Laws. They cannot be refuted. The Laws of Thermodynamics are irrefutable.

What is refutable is using thermodynamics in isolation from biochemistry, and other sciences.

II consider someone calling me a "know-it-all" just as personally offensive as calling me an idiot or a jerk.

Not really. If someone is telling me they will only speak to me as a teacher, then I would say "know it all" is the right word.

Why not read me before you criticize me. Sure, I want to sell books, don't we all want to sell something?

I'm willing to read, but I'm the kind of reader who has to seen evidence of the value first.

Last year, I picked up a copy of the latest edition of Dr. Atkins, and see the extensive list of research added, so I bought it.

If I find a copy of your book and am able to verify it is beyond mere opinions, and provides references, I will buy it.

Wa'il

[mrfreddy]

Well, I called you a blowhard earlier, and said you were lying, and for that, I apologize. I over-reacted. Let’s move on…

So, I have found a plan (Atkins) where I can eat all I want (see more below on this point); and I continue to lose wt. at a respectable, albeit not incredibly fast, rate. I also feel better than I ever have before on any other diet I have tried.

You want me to give up on this?

Why?

Let’s look at the reasons you provide:


1) You say that ketosis and wt. loss simply stop at some point on this plan.

You wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...it's
clear that many people fail to achieve bodyweight
regulation when following the Atkins version of the
low-carbohydrate diet. Some succeed, but that number
represents only a small percentage of all those who
have followed this regimen.
... No matter how much they cut their carbs,
no matter how much they try to stay in ketosis (Atkins'
magic land of weight loss success), they can't do it.
Ketosis also stops, along with the weight loss,
somewhere around weeks 3-5 of the plan. If they're one
of the fortunate 25%, they lose some weight, but even
these people reach a Plateau, stalled in
their efforts to lose more weight. They have no
idea what to do about it, and Atkins' solutions
simply don't work, despite his claims that they do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here you are discrediting the Atkins approach because of the plateau's that everyone reaches. One can lose some weight, but only to a point, you claim. You reach that point, and you are done. Finito. Nada mas.

Are you sure about this? Can you back this up with some real evidence? Can you prove that ketosis stops as you claim?

If so, what would one's body use for fuel once you hit this stopping point and continue to follow a low carb diet? No carbs to burn, and no ketosis, what can be happening?

I have gotten the impression from people on this forum and few people I have met personally that MOST people who stick with the plan are able to continue losing weight, so I am very interested in this point of yours. I want to know what to do when I reach your point of no return.


2) The irrefutable laws of thermodynamics.

My hunch is that you are right about the laws of thermodynamics-I believe the number of calories you eat DOES matter, even on Atkins. If I eat a dozen eggs and 8 porterhouse steaks a day, I am not gonna lose weight on this plan! But even Atkins tells you this - somewhere in his book he says the number of calories does matter, his point is that you don't need to worry about it much. You are able to eat to the point that you are satisfied and then stop.

Big difference right there between low carb and other diets - Eat till you are satisfied! Do not go Hungry! Yeah baby!


3) It's a low calorie diet in disguise.

you wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The low-carbohydrate diet works through one mechanism and one mechanism only and that is its tendency to reduce calorie consumption. This was all pointed out by Dr. John Yudkin in 1960, years before the appearance of the Atkins program.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hear this one a lot from anti-low carb circles, and I have to admit, they might be right, but I don't really buy it. I am eating about 2600 to 3000 calories and I continue to lose wt. I work out a lot, but I also drink more alcohol that moderation would call for. What would explain my wt. loss?

At any rate, even if this is true, who cares? I eat as much as I want, I NEVER go hungry, I have a few adult beverages a few times a week, and I still lose weight. Name another approach to losing weight (other than the various other low carb plans) that can make that claim!

So far, you haven’t made me very interested in your book or your ideas on DIET COMPOSITION. Feel free to keep trying though!

[suze_c]

As we found, the scientific research shows that parents of children with cerebral palsy over-report the child's food intake. The Laws of Thermodynamics hold, as they must. I believe that if this person now uses this objective information that she may be able to help her child more effectively. This is the purpose of good science and there is a lot of good science as well as bad science. I am only trying to take the subjective and make it more objective. I spent many years learning what I have learned and I had actually expected a more postive response from the people on this forum. I had posted the above reply before I seen that there was another one from you. I gather that you may be reading this forum,regarding this post and therefore I will wait at this time,to send a copy of this and the above post to you. I TRULY do take offense at your accusations that I am over-reporting my son's food intake! At no time, have I called you a liar, although I do admit calling you a know-it-all, simply because you think that you have all the answers. And as far as my remarks about your looks, all of us have our own "critique", for lack of a better word, for determining what we do and do not find attactive. You have made great strides as far as personal achievements and I do commend you on that. My son, has ALWAYS had a lean physique, and has NEVER gained weight easily.I DO have an attitude against those doctors, who think they have all the answers regarding my son.It started right after he was born and diagnosed as a spastic baby,and I was told that he would never be able to sit up,crawl,walk,or do any of the "normal" things that most babies do. Thank dear God, he was WRONG. Brendan does move about on his own,and he can walk with the assistance of a walker and some help, his record being 536 feet! Then there was the diagnosis of developmental delay... this clearly was not the case when he was 10 years old, and still not doing some of the things that most babies do! The worst doctor tho, that I had him see. simply looked at him, and with having done NO tests, said "he has a brain tumor, all we have to do is take it out and he will be as normal as everyone else!" We had a cat scan done at this doctor's urging, that showed no such tumor or mass as he supposed. And so Dr., I appreciate your comments, BUT you are erroneous in your assumption that I am oblivious to the actual caloric intake that my son is consuming on a daily basis.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=566074 Here is a picture of Brendan, and despite his disability, he is a happy young man, who has a lot of love to share with everyone.

P.S. I don't consider my replies to your accusations as flaming of any sort, and I am not trying to start a flame war. I am simpky responding the accusations made that I do not accurately count Brendan's daily caloric intake.

[Gregory]

OK, good luck with your research. Sorry to have p***ed you off.

I won't do it again. I thought I was helping but obviously you didn't see it that way.

[suze_c]

Dr. Ellis, I wrote to you originally with the hopes that I would get an answer as to why Brendan isn't gaining weight, as you do seem quite knowledgeable on the subject. Yes, I was upset with the reply, because once again Brendan was grouped into a "general category", this being studies done on those with cerebral palsy. I have worked with many individuals with CP, and for the most part, (not in every case), have found them below normal weights as suggested for individuals. The last doctor that Brendan went to, was not concerned about his weight, because he seen that despite his being underweight, he is healthy. Most of those individuals with severe multi-disabilities who were his classmates, have been in the hospital many times. I take pride in the fact, that Brendan has never been admitted to the hospital for any illnesses. I understand where you thought that you was helping me, and in fact, you did give me some excellent information about the BodyGem portable resting metabolic rate unit, and I am going to try to locate aforementioned unit. Why don't doctors and nutritionists just admit or even realize, that not every rule fits every individual? And I know that you are advocating all to get your book, and I have read what you said about Atkins.... what is your opinion on Stillman's diet? Thank you for all your input, and I do apologize for your thinking that I didn't appreciate your reply... it was interesting... erroneous as far as Brendan is concerned, but interesting nonetheless.

[Gregory]

To MrFreddy,

I never asked you to give it up. If it's working, keep doing it. I have counseled Atkins failures for many years. If you haven't encountered any, I'm sorry but I've encountered tons. What I'm trying to tell you is that when it doesn't work any more then here is the reason.

Ketosis is not a requirement for weight loss. It is not necessary. If it were, then those following low fat diets would not lose weight as they are never in ketosis.

I'm a universal discreditor -- I discredit everything that's out there today as either wrong, misinforming, or containing too little information. Some things Atkins says are right and others are wrong. Some things the low-fat guys say are right and others are wrong. You are right, plateaus are a part of all programs out there except mine. If you do what I tell you then you could go down to about the point where you just can't lose anymore fat which is around 5% body fat. It could got lower but you'd lose a lot of lean body mass too.

Now, you can lose weight to only a point, we saw this in starving Europe after WWII. Oh, sure there's tons of evidence. If you want to start with the classics then buy yourself the Biology of Human Starvation. It's a text book and is very expensive.

Now, eventually, even a low-fat eater will produce ketones if he reduces his calories enough as ketones rise according to the rate at which free fatty acids are released from the adipose tissue which is controlled by both substrate concentrations and the hormonal picture in the body. But if one overeats, the rise in blood levels of fuel will stimulate a release of insulin from the high ketones and that will shut off the release of free fatty acids. This is all like a dimmer switch on your lights.

My impression differs from yours about the continuance of weight loss on Atkins so there is no way to resolve that. I'd encourage you, however, to review some of this forums posts to see how often people complain of not losing. I see many complain of little loss during the induction phase which is amazing as anyone beginning a calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet should lose weight with about 70% of that weight loss arising from water losses. Again, a well-known fact within the extant scientific literature.

What to do if you hit your plateau is not to further lower the carbs to 40, 30, 20, or even 10 grams per day but to simply eat less or perform more exercise. Since calories are in control of weight and not carbohydrates you will succeed. Oh, it's not my point of no return, it's yours. I know how to do it as you can see from the photographs I posted on my web site.

Well Atkins has said both -- he's said eat all you want and just to eat till you're full. But he must of said eat all you want because enough people believe that is what he said. Even Sally Squires recently stated that in her Washington Post article. This, of course, is truer in his earlier writings rather than his recent 2002 release where he has sort of backpedalled a bit.

But I'd much rather we get away from being so subjective. You can calculate your calorie needs by standard formulas. It's amazing how people reject this information when they're told. I didn't make this stuff up. The scientific literature is riddled with these facts. I didn't make them facts, Nature did. People should quit killing the messenger.


I'm with you. How'd you get the impression I'm against low carb -- I'm not -- I'm all for it. But calories come first.

It is a low calorie diet. It's not disguised though. It's all about the metabolic control of food intake.

Again, we can't be sure of your count. This has been shown over and over. The average report of food intake is under-reported by 20-50% and even registered dieticians keeping a food diary also under-reported. If you feel I am pulling your leg here go get the test run.

It's all about the numbers and when you have the numbers the explanation, the real one, naturally follows.

The only (ONLY) explanation of weight loss is a calorie imbalance favoring less intake than what you burn. It really is that simple but it is really so complicated because many have made it so. I had to go through all the same stuff you're thinking about and that's how I got these answers.

And understand, I am not anti-low-carb. Of course, you're not hungry and neither am I. That's the low carb life but if I don't control my calorie intake too, I get fat on low carb. Nothing else is possible. Look at Atkins himself -- this is not a lean man or even a man who is of average body fat. When I did his radio show in 1989 we ate dinner first and he ate the baked potato right off my plate (he asked for it first).

I can name another approach that is even better: Burn your calories, exercise, lift weights, and watch your carbs. That's the killer ap.

Let me know if this peeks your interest. What I can't do however is cover 600 pages of the best info you've ever seen on bodyweight regulation in a discussion board. Every question you've asked and every one you ever thought about is covered in the book.

Greg

[Gregory]

Boy, how do you post to a post buried in a thread.

To Suze C

I understand that you believe your child is different and that's why I encouraged you to get the test run. Then we'll see where he is. And then we won't have to HOLLER at one another. I call this technique "putting-it-to-the-numbers." Now, I could say that there are outliers to the metabolism issue but it is very rare. For example, burn patients have a higher metabolism by about 16%. And I thought this may be true for your child so that's why I did the search. But clearly, even with that in hand, you still believe that yours is different. There's only one way to settle it: take the measurement. With that info in hand we know what to do for the next step. I'll await that measurement. Oh, and I'm not "trying" to be right this is just what I do and I've spent an awful lot of time doing it and I think I've come up with some stuff that can help.

Where do you live? Maybe I can help find the bodygem.

Greg

[suze_c]

I see where my posts in regards to questions do not even warrant replies from Dr. Ellis, even after explanations for my being upset. You sure don't have any problems pushing your book though, in replies to others. That tells me all I need to know... and I am sure it speaks volumes to others here as well.

[Gregory]

OK Wa'il, thanks for you insights. It's always good to get another perspective on things.

[Gregory]

Suze c

What'd I miss here?

[Lisa N]

Originally posted by Gregory
Thank you for your reply.

The low-carbohydrate diet works through one mechanism and one mechanism only and that is its tendency to reduce calorie consumption. This was all pointed out by Dr. John Yudkin in 1960, years before the appearance of the Atkins program.

Greg Ellis

In that case, I'd like to see you explain what happened in the study below where the group consuming the most calories also lost twice the amount of weight of their low cal counterparts:

Reference:
Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S., "Low Carbohydrate Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 2000, page 91.

Summary:
This study tested whether a low-carbohydrate diet that did not restrict calories would be more successful in promoting weight loss than a low-fat, low-calorie diet. Researchers also tested to see if such a diet would have negative effects on blood lipid profiles, thus increasing cardiovascular risk. To test their hypothesis, they recruited 39 obese adolescents for the study; 20 were placed in a low-carbohydrate diet group while 19 were placed in a low-fat diet group. Subjects in the low-carbohydrate group were allowed to consume as much protein and fat as they wanted, so long as carbohydrate intake remained below 20 grams for the first two weeks and below 40 grams for the next nine weeks. Members of the low-fat group were instructed to consume fewer than 40 grams of fat per day. The low carbohydrate group participants consumed an average of 1,830 calories per day while those in the low-fat group consumed 1,100 calories per day. Both groups showed improvement in HDL ("good") cholesterol, triglycerides and total cholesterol. The improvement in triglycerides was much more pronounced in the low-carbohydrate group. Eating 700 more calories per day than the low-fat group, the low-carbohydrate group lost twice as much weight (an average loss of 48 pounds for the low-carbohydrate group versus an average of 20 pounds for the low-fat group). Neither diet had any effect on liver or kidney function. The researchers concluded that the low-carbohydrate diet significantly improved weight loss despite a higher caloric intake. Also, contrary to their hypothesis, despite increased fat intake, the cardiovascular risk profile did not worsen, but in fact improved in certain aspects including HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

Commentary:
These findings can be applied to the Atkins Principles of Weight Loss and Disease Prevention. You can consume more calories and lose more weight on a low-carbohydrate diet than on a low fat diet. You do not have to cut calories and starve yourself when on a ketogenic diet in order to reap the rewards. And a low-carbohydrate diet is very effective in reducing risk factors associated with heart disease, such as triglycerides and total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratios.

[suze_c]

My apologies Dr. Ellis, or Gregory as you refer to yourself on this forum. Sometimes when I am replying to a post, it takes awhile, as I am also doing mom things at the same time... so when I was replying, you were putting up another post in regards to mine. It happens here lots :) I am mom to not only Brendan, but a precious daughter, KaeLyn,who will be one this Thursday 10-17.
Forgive me if I make it sound like I am being rude... I am VERY protective and a VERY OUTSPOKEN advocate for Brendan. After all, I speak for him as well, as he does not verbally speak, however I am, after all the years with him, able to know his means of communication.
I DO appreciate the studies that you came up with, as they ARE informative, they just do not refer to Brendan. I have heard that sometimes there are cases where the proper nutrients and minerals and such, are not absorbed properly by the body, and can cause no weight gain as well.
I agree, no more HOLLERING, and let's discuss this as rational adults...whoa did I just call myself rational? :lol: The nearest medical facility to me is in Hays, KS.,and I don't know if anything could be found there. I am in a smaller community, but that is where Brendan's doctors and the hospital is.Depending on the distance, we would be willing to travel, to get a reading from this Bodygem apparatus, and whether or not there would be a charge for the service.
Again, thank you for your help, and if you browse about this forum, you will see that there are many many individuals who have had great success with Atkins plan, not dissing yours,by any means... just stating what I have seen here.

[suze_c]

I located 11 units in Kansas, and there is one that is about 75 miles away from me. I will be contacting them and seeing what their policy is on getting a reading, whether there is a charge or not, etc., etc.
This could be something I would be interested in finding out for myself as well! Anyone reading these posts, the website is http://www.healthetech.com and the apparatus being discussed measures one's resting metabolic rate.
Thank you Gregory for your sharing this!

[rjakubin]

Laws of Thermodynamics for weight loss???
Somehow my brain skipped over this reference on his Web Site. Calories in = Calories out. Calories are measured in thermal units. This doesn't help anybody breaking through a plateau. Thermogenic reaction can.
Here's how someone did it; http://www.nutritionalsupplements.com/rfR51.html

Thermodynamics in physiology as I understand it - is heat. Body heat. ATP breaking down into ADP causes heat. To understand it better here's a web site that will explain it better than I can; http://www.howstuffworks.com/sports-physiology.htm/printable

And how muscles work; http://www.howstuffworks.com/muscle.htm/printable

I've read several articles on ECA stacking and they all say it's dangerous. Even with a doctors blessing. I wonder if he's condoning this in his book for breaking plateaus???

[AmberinIN]

I have read the postings here and found them to be very interesting.

To tell you the truth, I am sure people do lose weight with the solutions in his book. If you tell people to try low fat or low carb and, in addittion to this, cut calories, I'm sure people do lose their weight. I do believe that people lose in different ways. My husband and I are exact opposites. I lose on low carb, and he's 150 dripping wet and consumes carbs all day. My point is, if we are all on a site giving advice to others, we must have done something that works for us. In his case, he counted his calories and has come up with a diet or a series of diets that follow that. I know people have lost on diets like this. We follow a series of diets that promote low carb and adequate calories, not reduced. We figure out which diet is best for us and we follow it.

We can sit here and throw research at each other till the cows come home, but the fact is, we won't do his diet because it doesn't work for us, and he won't believe us because his experience is different. No matter how many people each side has succes, there's others that have success in other ways.

Anyway, I'm not saying that we should go out and buy his book. I won't, personally, because 8 years out counting calories and reducing them carefully, has gained me nothing but close to 100 pounds. I'm happy with the weight I've lost and am still losing. I had a few stalls, but it was only when I started adding exercise and weight lifting. After about 3-6 weeks, I started losing again because I added more calories.

Please be reminded that he is right in one aspect, we will not change our minds about his methods, and as delusional and untaught as he thinks we are in not giving credit to his plan, he is basically doing the same thing by not believing anyone else has their own right answer.

:wave: Amber

[mrfreddy]

Dr. Gregg!

responding to your response to my respose....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm a universal discreditor -- I discredit everything that's out there today as either wrong, misinforming, or containing too little information.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting technique. Not very scientific, is it?

Plateaus are a part of all programs out there except mine.


I find that very hard to believe, but anyway, what’s the problem with plateaus? I always come out the other side and start losing wt. Again, so what’s the big deal?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you want to start with the classics then buy yourself the Biology of Human Starvation. It's a text book and is very expensive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So is your book… 65 bucks!!! From your posts and from the content on your web site, my guess is that once you subtract the hot air factor we are probably left with just a few pages. Not trying to flame you here, just posting my honest opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My impression differs from yours about the continuance of weight loss on Atkins so there is no way to resolve that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, considering this is a major point in your attack on the viability of the Atkins diet – your posts and your web site are littered with numerous inflammatory and derogatory comments on the Atkins approach, and this is the common theme to most of them – I think you HAVE to come up with something better than your “impression.”

You can’t expect us to take you seriously when you make such claims and then cop out with a sort of “it’s a difference of opinions” excuse. Where’s the evidence for your claims? Of course lots of people fail at Atkins. My guess is that most do so for reasons that have nothing to do with calorie counts.

Just not very scientific, are you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd encourage you, however, to review some of this forums posts to see how often people complain of not losing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just look at the follow up numbers for most of them. I myself posted a few complaints when I hit a big stall – I was worried it wasn’t actually working. But I stuck with it and the pounds started coming off again. And so do most of the others I have stuck with their low carb plan. You have to look a little below the surface sometimes.

If you want to be scientific, that is.

I see many complain of little loss during the induction phase which is amazing as anyone beginning a calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet should lose weight with about 70% of that weight loss arising from water losses. Again, a well-known fact within the extant scientific literature.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There you go again, tossing around science talk as if it proves your point.

I only see a few complaints about not losing wt. during induction A careful and thorough review of the information available on this board shows that. I guess you only see what you are looking for.

In fact, most people do lose wt. during induction and most of that, as I learned myself by reading this board, is water weight. This is normal and is to be expected on ANY diet.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What to do if you hit your plateau is not to further lower the carbs to 40, 30, 20, or even 10 grams per day…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know, I learned this from a number of people here on this very forum. But thanks anyway.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…but to simply eat less or perform more exercise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IF you had said eat more, you’d have been more on target! I have broken through a couple of my plateaus by eating MORE, not less. Of course, I can’t scientifically claim any causality here, who knows what really broke the spell. Could have been any number of things.

But I don’t have to be scientific. I am not selling $65.00 book and claiming I am right and all the other guys are wrong, am I?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, it's not my point of no return, it's yours.


You’re the one who makes the extraordinary claim that there is a stopping point when one is on a low carb, atkins style diet, not me. Once again, where is the proof? I see loads of evidence to the contrary and very little to support your claims, and you don’t seem to be able to back it up. I am patiently waiting for some substance in your replies on this issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I know how to do it as you can see from the photographs I posted on my web site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You look extremely HUNGRY! Heh heh, sorry, couldn’t resist….

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can calculate your calorie needs by standard formulas. It's amazing how people reject this information when they're told.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because we still don’t buy your basic premise, due to the loads of evidence to the contrary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn't make this stuff up. The scientific literature is riddled with these facts. I didn't make them facts, Nature did. People should quit killing the messenger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, you DO interpret this stuff, to support your theories and to sell your $65.00 books.

Can’t you admit to the possibility that there may be a little someone going on beyond your beloved calories in/calories out principle? A good scientist should always open to new conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence at hand.


It is a low calorie diet. It's not disguised though. It's all about the metabolic control of food intake. Again, we can't be sure of your count. This has been shown over and over. The average report of food intake is under-reported by 20-50% and even registered dieticians keeping a food diary also under-reported. If you feel I am pulling your leg here go get the test run.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You’re not really thinking about what you’re saying, are you?

Once again, you are running fast and loose with the science talk. Following your premise logically, if I am under-reporting by 20 to 50 %, then I am eating even more, way more, than I am reporting. So instead of my 2500 to 3000 calories daily, I must be eating somewhere between 3000 to 4000 calories a day. If calories matter to the degree that you are convinced they do, then why, pray tell, have I managed to lose weight?


What “test run” are you referring to?

I use fitday.com to get an idea of my calorie counts, both before and during Atkins, although I can’t be bothered to keep up with it on a daily basis. I think I get a pretty good idea of my intake, both calorie and carb-wise, by recording everything I eat for a set period, and I mean everything. I figure there’s probably a 10% margin of error either way even still.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's all about the numbers and when you have the numbers the explanation, the real one, naturally follows.

The only (ONLY) explanation of weight loss is a calorie imbalance favoring less intake than what you burn. It really is that simple but it is really so complicated because many have made it so. I had to go through all the same stuff you're thinking about and that's how I got these answers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ok, according to the numbers, you intake X calories, you burn Y via activity and exercise and just being alive and Z via Ketosis. In that case, X can be greater than Y but not greater than Y + Z.

To take this further,

If:

X = Y + Z , you stay in place
X < Y + Z, you lose wt.
X > Y + Z, you gain wt.

Seems pretty simple to me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And understand, I am not anti-low-carb. Of course, you're not hungry and neither am I. That's the low carb life but if I don't control my calorie intake too, I get fat on low carb. Nothing else is possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think we differ only on the degree of control. I eat till I am satisfied, and I don’t need to worry about calorie counts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Look at Atkins himself -- this is not a lean man or even a man who is of average body fat. When I did his radio show in 1989 we ate dinner first and he ate the baked potato right off my plate (he asked for it first).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That must have been the bizzarro backwards world Dr. Atkins! But seriously, when I get to the point where I am comfortable with my weight, I fully intend to enjoy a baked potato every now and then msyelf!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me know if this peeks your interest. What I can't do however is cover 600 pages of the best info you've ever seen on bodyweight regulation in a discussion board. Every question you've asked and every one you ever thought about is covered in the book.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For 65 bucks, no thanks!

[seyont]

Dr Sears uses the same self-possessed style, a tad toned down, to constantly hawk his wares, yet I've read and learned from his books.

I look forward to seeing Ellis' book in a bookstore.

[rjakubin]

Dr. Sears books are $20.00 a pop. So if you get In the Zone, Mastering the Zone, & Omega RX Zone thats $60.00
I've only bought Mastering & Omega. Omega RX is the only one I would recommend. It is very informative. I picked up The Perricone Prescription by Nicholas Perricone yesterday and between the two you'll get a real good read on fish oils.

[Pete]

From my own personal experience, I think Dr. Gregg's assertions make a lot of sense. I too have felt that generally, there is an undeniable relationship between calorie intake and utilization. Not being a die-hard Atkins disciple, I have always benefited from exercise and not over eating. I could never eat significant a quantum of allowable food over a prolonged period of time under an Atkins plan and lose weight. Now that may speak to the peculiarities of my own body, but the idea of just eating and eating low-carb food without regulation and losing weight, just doesn’t ring true with me.

I’m curious, has anyone tried to stick to very low carbohydrate count and eaten significant amounts of food, say 3,000 calories a day, and lost weight? Is it possible?

[Lisa N]

Pete...

Nowhere in Dr. Atkins' book does he give anyone license to pig out on allowable foods. As a matter of fact, he says just that; "The metabolic advantage is not a license to gorge yourself."
There are members who can eat more calories than others and still lose weight (check Mr. Freddy's post above where he reports consuming 2,500-3,000 calories daily and is still losing weight). My own caloric intake runs between 1,500 and 2,000 according to Fitday. I think the whole point is that when you are keeping your carbs low, you don't have to starve yourself or constantly be hungry to lose weight.
What Dr. Atkins does say repeatedly is to eat until you are satisfied, not stuffed. Some people have a difficult time determining where that point is, but many also have a difficult time eating enough on low carb because of a lack of appetite induced by ketosis. Eating too few calories can slow weight loss as much as eating too many, so it's a balance; one that each must find for themselves. I think it's true that you can consume more calories on low carb and still lose weight than on low fat/high carb (see the study I posted on a previous page), but there comes a point even on low carb where you will not lose if you are eating too much, although most people don't get to that threshold simply because they aren't hungry enough to eat that much.
Nowhere in Dr. Atkins' book does he say that exercise is unnecessary, either. He devotes an entire chapter to it and how how necessary and beneficial it is.

[Pete]

I think the whole point is that when you are keeping your carbs low, you don't have to starve yourself or constantly be hungry to lose weight.

I suppose that may be true, but you can also excercise regularly and achieve the same result; that's been my experience anyway. And while I think a lower carb intake make's sense, I'm still unsure that it has the magic Atkins professes. Sure, if you keep away from chocolate bars, ice cream, potato chips, you're going to be better off in maintaining your goal weight - it works for me. But to me that seems like the application of common sense in avoiding food with high sugar and calorie levels.

I suppose my real point is that its as much about food choices overall as it is low carb food choices. Some people don't have an affinity for all foods that are strictly low in carbs, because they can be high in fat content. But hey, if a low carb intake helps people modify their calorie intake and lose weight effectively then so be it.

[Sheldon]

"I'm still unsure that it has the magic Atkins professes."


What "magic"? Endocrinologists have long known what high levels of insulin do to the human body. (See Schwarzbein.) Low-carbing is a way of keeping insulin low and stable. That's not magic. It's science. And it isn't just a matter of minimizing calories.

Sheldon

[Sheldon]

One more thing. It is hardly scientific to infer from forum postings that most people fail on law-carb diets. Wouldn't we expect those having problems and in need of advice to post in greater numbers than than those who are succeeding? People are busy. They are less likely to spend time on a forum if diet and weight are not giving them problems. It's hardly a scientific sample.

Sheldon

[Janeydi]

I'm so conviced that insulin is the key for me that I won't eat anything that will raise my blood sugar more than 15-20 pts from my fasting reading of 70. That eliminates starchy foods in any quantity. Real sugar, oddly enough, doesn't seem to be as bad as aspartame, which causes a big rise. (?)

I have, in the past, gained weight on 1400 calories of mostly carbs, but now I can lose weight on 1400 calories of mostly fat and protein. No one will ever convince me that diet composition isn't AT LEAST as important as calories. ( I know, I know, I'm mis-calculating my daily counts. It must be that all the measuring cups, spoons and scales in this country are faulty! It's a conspiracy!) Furthermore, I'm quite certain, if I could do it, that I could eat say, 75 grams of green veggies a day and not have a problem, but 75 grams of grain would knock me out. It makes me depressed, lethargic, my heart flutter, heartburn, on and on.
But that is only what MY situation is. Everyone has their own peculiarities.

The human body only gives up it's mysteries slowly. What we think is 'fact' now, may be proven false on down the road. Or, more likely, we will see that we didn't have the whole picture. This is an on-going journey and to think we have all the answers now is bad science.

Off my soapbox, now. And thank you Dr Atkins for opening the dialog, not for being perfect.

Amy

[Scarlet]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

If many of us lowcarbers can lose weight by just counting carbs - who cares? Why should we try to search vainly to find that somehow we are consuming too few/too much calories? Calories do matter for some people, some situations etc; but not for everyone.

Also, I am so sick of everyone assuming that LCing is just Atkins. What about PP, TSP, CAD, The Zone, The Diet Cure, The Insulin Resistance Diet, SugarBusters etc. There are people that don't do well on Atkins but who love TSP or PP or SugarBusters. These people often have what you would consider "too many calories".

It seems you are just here to sell your book, sir. I for one will certainly not buy a book from someone who can only see one way, one solution. I can see merits to all diet plans (aside from ones like the cabbage soup diet or nonsense like that), and do not try to shove my opinions down other people's throats.

BTW, those Atkins failures you speak of may have well thrived on other lC plans if you had given them a chance, instead of immediately cutting their calories. Did you know that the scientists who created the calorie THEORY actually refuted it in journals afterwards when they saw how dangerous it was, but by then people like you weren't listening.

If caloric theory works for you, great. But don't assume it applies to everyone. It doesn't.

[jwperu]

"The low-carbohydrate diet works through one mechanism and one mechanism only and that is its tendency to reduce calorie consumption. This was all pointed out by Dr. John Yudkin in 1960, years before the appearance of the Atkins program."................................................................................................. I see another poster has already posted this study, but I am still going to post this, as I feel it is very important. From the study, ............."Eating 700 more calories per day than the low-fat group, the low-carbohydrate group lost twice as much weight (an average loss of 48 pounds for the low-carbohydrate group versus an average of 20 pounds for the low-fat group). " .............. The bottom line is that a calorie is a rather simple unit of heat, and does not take into account the complex hormonal environment of the human body. While insulin and glucogon are somewhat understood, leptin is not, and I doubt was even identified in 1960. In other words, we are currently still attempting to understand the complex mechanisms that govern fat storage and mobilization, and I feel it is rather short sighted to state that it was all defined in 1960.
I am a new member of this forum and IMHO this group of people is as diet research savy as any group that I have yet encountered, and best addressed with really solid scientific information rather than suppositions. In my experience, much of our current problems are related to a rather simplistic notion that "low-calorie" is going to solve the problem of obesity in America.............................................................................................. Reference:Low Carbohydrate Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S., "Low Carbohydrate Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 2000, page 91.

Summary:
This study tested whether a low-carbohydrate diet that did not restrict calories would be more successful in promoting weight loss than a low-fat, low-calorie diet. Researchers also tested to see if such a diet would have negative effects on blood lipid profiles, thus increasing cardiovascular risk. To test their hypothesis, they recruited 39 obese adolescents for the study; 20 were placed in a low-carbohydrate diet group while 19 were placed in a low-fat diet group. Subjects in the low-carbohydrate group were allowed to consume as much protein and fat as they wanted, so long as carbohydrate intake remained below 20 grams for the first two weeks and below 40 grams for the next nine weeks. Members of the low-fat group were instructed to consume fewer than 40 grams of fat per day. The low carbohydrate group participants consumed an average of 1,830 calories per day while those in the low-fat group consumed 1,100 calories per day. Both groups showed improvement in HDL ("good") cholesterol, triglycerides and total cholesterol. The improvement in triglycerides was much more pronounced in the low-carbohydrate group. Eating 700 more calories per day than the low-fat group, the low-carbohydrate group lost twice as much weight (an average loss of 48 pounds for the low-carbohydrate group versus an average of 20 pounds for the low-fat group). Neither diet had any effect on liver or kidney function. The researchers concluded that the low-carbohydrate diet significantly improved weight loss despite a higher caloric intake. Also, contrary to their hypothesis, despite increased fat intake, the cardiovascular risk profile did not worsen, but in fact improved in certain aspects including HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

Regards.

[seyont]

Man, Dr. Ellis has a lot of energy! He seems to run about four web sites [1][2][4][6].

His approach appears to require heavy attention to detail, counting each calorie eaten and each calorie exercised. His supplements and the CalTrac device (sort of a suped-up pedometer) would be optional, I hope. Though he himself low-carbs, he seems to make no mention of the effect, as if he is long past insulin resistance and has forgotten about it. He promotes the straight AMA line that it’s simply all about calories but with, I suspect, some heavy recordkeeping.

His book may well be the all-Universe Compendium of Knowledge, and I look forward to seeing it sometime. But fitness, training, and nutrition are *so* much easier than what he’s putting himself through. Perhaps he just likes to expend maximum effort.


[1] His book web-site, which started this whole thread:
http://www.ultimatedietsecrets.com/index.html

[1a] the first hint that his is going to be a very exacting plan:
http://www.ultimatedietsecrets.com/ch4calcs.html

[1b] He’s not shy:
http://www.ultimatedietsecrets.com/part3.html

“I've uncovered everything there is to know about dieting...”

[2] His calorie-counting device web-site:
http://www.muscledynamics.net/caltrac/01_intro.html

[2a] a glimpse of his 100/100 plan, eating 100 calories less than you burn:
http://www.muscledynamics.net/caltrac/04_100plan.html

“Just following Dr. Ellis’s easy 100/100 Plan will help you lose more than 20 pounds in less than a year.”

[2b] a typical CalTrac, 100/100 day:
http://www.muscledynamics.net/caltrac/05_typical.html

[3] A really good interview with Dr Ellis:
http://www.seattlerkc.com/Girevik/Second/interviewellis.htm

“I am a low-carb guy ...”
“...and I also burn about 2,000 calories per day doing eight miles of weighted vest walking carrying 40 pounds.”
“I make my own vitamins and minerals and use them along with ephedra, green tea extract, DIM, and homeopathic Growth Hormone.”

[4] A supplement he sells, of magnesium and potassium aspartate
http://www.xcellr8.com/

[4a] a fun snippet from an ‘interview’:
http://www.xcellr8.com/Affiliate_Program/Home/Interview/interview.HTM

“...I can legally, under the FDA guidelines of the DSHEA Act of 1994, claim that X-Cell-R8 “helps to increase energy and endurance.” “

[5] The FDA’s DSHEA Act of 1994, (you’re ok as long as you don’t claim to prevent disease) :
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dietsupp.html

[6] more supplements, exercise. Emphasis on detoxification:
http://www.targetedbodysystems.com/index.asp

[7] An article with his take on toxins:
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:AzFTAVq3d_gC:www.cellulardetox.com/toxins.htm&ie=UTF-8

[Sheldon]

Whew! Kinda makes you wonder.

Sheldon

[Lisa N]

Originally posted by Pete
I suppose that may be true, but you can also excercise regularly and achieve the same result; that's been my experience anyway.

I'm glad that's worked for you, but many people here, including myself, have done the low cal/low fat/exercise your brains out approach and gotten nowhere with it.

Sure, if you keep away from chocolate bars, ice cream, potato chips, you're going to be better off in maintaining your goal weight - it works for me. But to me that seems like the application of common sense in avoiding food with high sugar and calorie levels.

It's not just chocolate bars, ice cream and potato chips that are high sugar. There's also bread, rice, pasta, potatoes and most fruits which your body can quite easily and quickly turn into sugar.

But hey, if a low carb intake helps people modify their calorie intake and lose weight effectively then so be it.

Low carb doesn't work mainly by modifying caloric intake. It works by lowering insulin production and therefore fat storage. Also by removing the easy energy source (carbs) which drive the whole process, it forces the body to turn to it's fat stores for energy.

[Pete]

Lisa,

Do not assume that people like me who post in this forum do not understand the concept behind carbohydrates in any form like bread, pasta and the impact of insulin production and fat storage. I understand the theory reasonably well and I think it has an impact, but I'm not sure how much; at least in my case. More importantly, I think that some people, like me, don't want to give up every form of carbohydrate food because it is enjoyable. I choose to watch my carbohydrate intake but not minimize it to the extent others do. I try to supplement how I eat by excercising regularly and it works for me so yes, the magic is not there as Atkins describes it - at least for me.

As someone else pointed out, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Lisa N]

Pete...

The approach in maintainance (as you are in) is a bit different than it is when you are in the ongoing weight loss phase for Atkins. In the maintainace phase, many people find that they can add whole grains back into their diets in moderation along with more fruits and the occasional higher carb treat.
I'm a bit confused since your profile indicates that you're following the Bernstein plan. Is that the Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution diet or the other Bernstein plan?
Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution is very much like the Atkins approach with the exception being that you never go above 30 grams of carb per day and are not allowed fruit or grains at all. He also highly advocates weight resistance training as a means to control blood sugars along with carb restriction.
As for enjoying higher carb foods. I used to enjoy them quite a bit too...until I started getting nasty blood sugar spikes whenever I ate them. I don't enjoy that at all.
BTW...I wasn't assuming that you didn't understand the impact of carbs in the form of rice, pasta, bread and potatoes. I just wanted to clarify for anyone else reading this thread that might think, "Aha! All I have to do is stay away from junk food and I'm fine!".

[PoofieD]

I hear that you don't have the "magic" from atkins..but what I fail to understand is how do you know??
I mean. alright..what your doing is working for you.. at least for this point. But saying the Atkins wouldn't have "magic" for you. ..is rather a strange statement.. from someone that really hasn't seemed to get what this is all about.
Please understand that I am not doing atkins.. but I suppose the one thing I find most irritating, I guess because I have bothered to read the books and the science behind it.. is why so many people make so many assumptions about what it is.
I suppose I didn't understand either that this forum was a place for "dr" of whatever to coming hawking his wares. I guess if you want to join such a person's band wagon.. hop on it.. we all wish you success.
But this man .. hawking his wares..is not a different answer. Its counting. its driving yourself to drink worrying about numbers!
Sorry.. I have better things to do in my life than count all the bites, calories ect. They didn't USED to do this. The man is also proven incorrect but parroting what he has read before from someone else that refused to understand the Atkins plan, is that this is NOT a low calorie diet. Anyone of us that spends time at fitday gets that idea really quickly. HIS is the low calorie..lets see how much we can starve you and ruin your hormonal system and metobolism while I am at it. No thanks.
Knowing what atkins is.. I also wonder about the "failures".. I mean. KNOWING and understanding how it works.. I wonder what they were doing.
And. .if this doesn't work.. having been down the road of less calories and ect.. and knowing what that is.. Ie" a set up for failure" ... been there and done that.. you really aren't very new.. your the same old same old establishment blather...

[Lisa N]

Poofie...

That can be an unfortunate side effect of having to count calories (and sometimes even carbs, although one is definetly a bit easier than the other). It can lead to an unhealthy obsession, especially if there is little room for error if it's going to work as there seems to be with Dr. Ellis' plan. For me, if I'm eating low carb veggies, it's difficult to go over the 30 gram a day mark because I get full long before I reach that mark, especially with the meat and fats with it.
Something else about fats...for most people they are self-limiting; you can only eat so much of them before you start to feel uncomfortable...even a bit nauseated (if you don't believe me, try eating a stick of butter or a cup of mayonnaise all by itself sometime). Carbs don't have that effect until you have eaten WAY past the amount that would be considered healthy for anyone.
I've never seen anyone actually succeed in eating an entire stick of butter. I have, however, seen someone succeed in eating an entire box of doughnuts.
I'm not sure what anyone means by the "magic" of Atkins. There's really no magic to it at all. It's biochemisty, not Alchemy.

[rjakubin]

Thanks seyont. I knew he was up to something behind the Emerald Curtain. Since he's a bodybuilder, he's using all the tricks of the trade. Had to look up DIM and see what it was.

What is DIM?

Diindolyl methane is a dietary indole found in cruciferous vegetables. DIM occurs naturally within the cruciferous vegetable plant after crushing or chewing. Plant enzymes produce DIM form precursors called glucosinolates.
How is DIM important in Men's Health?
In men, diminished estrogen metabolism and estrogen accumulation are central problems associated with aging. DIM strongly promotes its own metabolism and in doing so increases a more active and beneficial metabolism of estrogen. This estrogen metabolism is better because it converts estradiol health promoting 2-hydoxy metabolites. These metabolites help free testosterone from its binding protein for greater testosterone activity and can reduce testosterone and estrogen stimulation of the prostate gland. Together with a healthy diet and exercise, the metabolic shift from DIM results in a "younger" balance of testosterone to estrogen. DIM supplementation is compatible with natural testosterone replacement. DIM works very well for maintaining and increasing healthy testosterone levels when combined with anabolic prohormones without the increased estradiol side-effects. Such prohormones include: 19-norandrostenediol, 19-norandrostenedione, 5-androstenediol and 4-androstenediol.

Not only does he use DIM, he also uses ephedra. Which means he's stacking (ECA). His so called Laws of Thermodynamics. Using HGH (Human Growth Hormone) also helps you lose weight along with green tea.

He should come out and say that he's on a CKD diet.
He comes close in his interview; "I had to devise sophisticated strategies to overcome the body's increase in metabolic efficiency. You may discover that your goal to become lean is not worth the price you have to pay to achieve it. I detail all of this in two chapters on Metabolic Adaptations in Ultimate Diet Secrets."

A nice site on Metabolic Diets:
http://www.metabolicdiet.com/

L8'er Dude... You stand on the shoulders of giants and not admit it. You did it all yourself!

[Angeline]

Actually his book (from what I can gather from his description) reminded me a lot of Trainerdan new book. Except without the hype and without trying to demolish Atkins.

I'm always suspicious of people who try to hitch a ride on the let's bash <insert method here> wagon. They sound like they are trying to overcompensate for something.

If you want to spend your money, buy TrainerDan book instead.

[Sheldon]

Where can one get information about TrainerDan's book?

Sheldon

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Sheldon
Where can one get information about TrainerDan's book?

Original thread, and readers' reviews:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44347

Wa'il

[Pete]

Any mention of the Dr. Bernstein plan that I was on has actually been banished from this group. But since you've asked, it was a low fat, low carb, low calorie....heck it was actually the boot camp of all diets where I lost 56 lbs. in 3 months. It was a supervised diet with regular check-ups that is popular with some people and not with others. On maintenance, I have followed a relative low carb diet and it has worked quite well. I have to excercise as well.

I suppose my reluctance to believe the "magic" of Atkins is that I was so successful doing something else that seems more conventional. To each his own.

[mrfreddy]

I think we all must know you can lose wt. any number of ways, low fat included.

But, who wants to do that?

Anyway, my big problem with this Ellis guy, aside from his overblown style, is his claim that Atkins style diets all stop working at some point. I think he is taking the fact that most people experience a slow down after a big loss on induction, and exaggerating it. Sure, the wt. loss slows down, but from what I can tell, those who stick with it go on to lose the wt. they want to lose, and the great news is that they don't seem to need any extreme calorie counting, drug taking, hunger enduring nonsense!

And apparently, he is doing this not from a scientific point of view, but just for the sole purpose of selling his book. He may be sincere, but he is extremely sloppy with the science and pseudo-science he bazookas in all directions across the landscape.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this extraordinary claim, and I see loads of evidence to the contrary on this forum.

Well, Dr., what do you say? Can you back up position with some substance?

[Kristine]

I'm sure the methods in Dr Ellis' book will work for those who are willing to be that detailed and particular on his plan. Quite frankly, though, I dont *want* to have to pay that much attention to diet and exercise anymore. I refuse to go to a gym. I want to be able to make quick, simple, often last-minute decisions about what I eat and when I'll be active, because I actually have a *life.* That's why I'm sticking to (moderately) low-carb.

On some issues, it's clear that we all just have to agree to disagree. The one opinion of mine that probably can't be changed is that I'm not willing to accept that it all comes down to thermodynamics and calories. Perhaps if I were a car as Wa'il suggested, yes, but that's hardly the case. When my raging PMS makes me want to rob a convenience store for a Snickers bar... what does thermodynamics have to do with that? What about when my seasonal depression kicks in around November, and for six months, all I want to do is sleep and eat box after box of Kraft Dinner? Calories may be the rule of how much fat I'll end up with, but my brain chemistry and hormones, unfortunately, have a *lot* to say about how many calories I'll take in.

Dr Ellis said: "In normal healthy people at an average bodyweight there is no such thing as a SLOW or FAST metabolism." Great: so those rules apply to normal, healthy people. But I look around this forum and I see a lot of people with conditions like PCOS, hypothyroidism, diabetes, insulin resistance, and depression. I see people on birth control and anti-depressants who suddenly start gaining weight like crazy. I see chronic yo-yo dieters, over-eaters, bulimics and anorexics who are trying to get their bodies back to normal. Calories and thermodynamics theory is nice until you throw one of the above monkey wrenches into the picture.

I dunno... perhaps I haven't explained my point too well here, but if there was a birth control pill for men, or male hormonal cycles, Dr Ellis would know what I mean. :D I, too, used to have a strictly-calories mindset until I went on, then off, the pill; then later on, then off, depo-provera. *shrug*

[suze_c]

Dr Ellis said: "In normal healthy people at an average bodyweight there is no such thing as a SLOW or FAST metabolism." Great: so those rules apply to normal, healthy people. But I look around this forum and I see a lot of people with conditions like PCOS, hypothyroidism, diabetes, insulin resistance, and depression. I see people on birth control and anti-depressants who suddenly start gaining weight like crazy. I see chronic yo-yo dieters, over-eaters, bulimics and anorexics who are trying to get their bodies back to normal. Calories and thermodynamics theory is nice until you throw one of the above monkey wrenches into the picture. How true Kristine, that certain conditions will affect dieting so much... and how fortunate that we all have found a way of eating that is so beneficial... and even tho, there are different LC plans... the premise is the same... low carbs... even tho the amount may differ, this w/o/e is TREMENDOUSLY lower than what the "average" person eats.

I dunno... perhaps I haven't explained my point too well here, but if there was a birth control pill for men, or male hormonal cycles, Dr Ellis would know what I mean.

:clap: :agree: :clap: :agree: :clap: :agree: :clap: :agree:

EXACTLY Kristine... men are truly clueless when it comes to knowing about the female hormonal changes... they have that testosterone, which runs all the time.... as we females well know :lol:... Hey! I am not bashing men here... Kristine made a very valid point, not only with what I quoted, but with her whole post.

Sorry.. I have better things to do in my life than count all the bites, calories ect. They didn't USED to do this. The man is also proven incorrect but parroting what he has read before from someone else that refused to understand the Atkins plan, is that this is NOT a low calorie diet. Anyone of us that spends time at fitday gets that idea really quickly. HIS is the low calorie..lets see how much we can starve you and ruin your hormonal system and metobolism while I am at it. No thanks.
Poofie... I agree with you,... we know about those low cal diets, and how much havoc they can wreak on one's system... WHY count calories and lower calories, when this is already working?

Many others on here made very good points... I am not into the chemical aspects of why this works or that works... yes it will affect things... but at this point in time, I will read about it, just not incorporate it into my w/o/l.

[Elihnig]

How many times have we told people to increase their carb level, especially when they seem to be stalled out? I think that retreating to 0 carb, or less than 20 could increase the stall, but moving up to 30 could end it. It seems that whatever our body is missing it tries to horde. Don't drink enough water...it gets retained. Don't eat enough fat...it doesn't burn off as efficiently. Maybe it's the same for carbs, if we don't get the necessary ones to keep the body going, the body's processes slow down creating a stall while the body manufactures glucose from protein.

I believe that the recommendation by Dr. Atkins to drop carb levels after induction to get over a stall or plateau may be incorrect.

Beth

[suze_c]

Beth, I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you on that one... if dropping the carb levels to near 0 is so detrimental to weight loss,causing stalls... then how do you explain the success of Stillman's diet... which is primarily carnivorous, advocating as few of carbs AND fat, as possible? Stillman Diet (click here) (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=592389#post592389) I have done the Stillman diet, and lost weight rather rapidly, 26 lbs. in 4 wks., and I was smaller to begin with, than I am now, that's an understatement! If I only weighed now,what I started with then, I would not even be on a diet now!!! And that is getting as FEW carbs AND fat as possible! Even now losing on Atkins induction, I started Sept. 20th, in the first week I lost 14#, (haven't weighed myself since then), but have been taking measurements... and as of this morning, I have lost 34.50 inches! Now I know I am not eating even close to 20 grams of carbs per day... and my fat intake is not high as some I have seen... I would say that the way I am doing this plan is working for me... others' results may be different,but this is proof for me that this works for me... today however I tweak my plan, and make it into a combination Stillman & Atkins plan, so am calling it my SuManKins plan! :lol:

[Sheldon]

The idea that we need a certain amount of carbs and will horde them if we don't get them is belied by the experience in 1928 of Vilhjalmur Steffannson (http://www.powerhealth.net/articles/default.htm), the American anthropologist who, along with a colleage, went a full year eating nothing but meat while under medical supervision at Bellevue Hospital in New York. At the end of the year, he had lost eight pounds and was in fine health. He did not even have scurvy, which was thought to require citrus fruit to avoid. In other words, meat has enough vitamin C to keep us healthy

These men ate no fruits, vegetables, eggs, nuts, or dairy products--only meat, defined as "steaks, chops, brains fried in bacon fat, boiled short-ribs, chicken, fish, liver and bacon." They were not proposing this as a diet, but only trying to see what would happen if they lived on it for a lengthy period. The results were highly informative.

There's some food for thought.

Sheldon

[Sheldon]

Correction: Stefannson lost ten pounds, which is the amount he was estimated to have been overweight before entering the experiment.

Sheldon

P.S.: I misspelled Stefannson's name in my previous post.

[PoofieD]

Fact is there aren't any essential carbohydrates.
There are essential fats and there are essential protiens.. ones our body can't produce, but not one essential carbohydrate.
That being said, while the experiment was very interesting and abuot the same sort of diet the eskimoes and the greenlanders were eating and being healthy on, there are all sort of factors that really have't been studied as of yet.
Such as all the previous notes about all the people on this board with various levels of health.
Is the addition of carbs for some people "magic" or would they have had the same result on the lower carbs?
Are those same people perhaps making their diet alot of convience low carb foods that I am NOT convinced are good for you, or are they eating "real" foods.
Ones you can in theory hunt, pick ,gather ect.
Is there a point "healing' your body has to do after years of yo yo dieting doing it the count all those calories and foods way??
I am counting on the last part. But I still don't know all this for sure.
What I do know is that at least right now I feel good.
In fact the only time I have any discomfort at all is during a chocolate binge ( believe me.. they don't even begin to equal what I used to do! .but it still feels funny after being so "good")
Lots of rambling I know.
But.. no thanks again.. I am not doing some plan where I have to count my calories or other such activities.
Poofie

[suze_c]

Sheldon, you are a very well read and informative kind of guy, I really enjoy reading your posts and learning new stuff... I believe I also read about Stefannson being in with the Eskimos, and being on their way of eating at that time as well. He got quite ill and that is why the 2nd time that he done it, he went to Bellevue hospital because of what physical reactions he had had the first go around.. are we talking about the same guy? You say "there's some food for thought",heheh too bad we can't live on "thought alone". :lol:

and Poofie, I am not reccomending that any here follow such a diet... everyone here, has to decide what works for them... whether it is by following a certain "laid-out" plan to the letter... or by tweaking it, or coming up with their own...Today I start my own rendition of stillman/atkins combination.
I keep hearing though about not having to count calories on this LC way... and yes, I like that aspect of it too... but how many that are saying they HATE counting calories, are keeping track of their calories on places such as fitday.com? Hmmm, now there's some food for thought~!

[Sheldon]

All good points, PoofieD. I can say with confidence that there is no "magic." By that I mean there is a naturalistic, scientific explanation for what goes on in anyone's body. It might take extended investigation to find it, but the reason is there to be found. There is no magic, except the kind David Copperfield does on stage.

Sheldon

[Sheldon]

Originally posted by suze_c
I believe I also read about Stefannson being in with the Eskimos, and being on their way of eating at that time as well. He got quite ill and that is why the 2nd time that he done it, he went to Bellevue hospital because of what physical reactions he had had the first go around.. are we talking about the same guy?


Same guy, but I think you are not remembering it correctly. He did not get sick with the Eskimos. It just took him time to learn to like fish, which he had not liked previously. He does relate that when he was forced to eat only lean meat, he did not feel good. Finding fat ended all symptoms.

Here's what he says, "About the fourth month of my first Eskimo winter I was looking forward to every meal (rotten or fresh [fish]), enjoying them, and feeling comfortable when they were over. Still I kept thinking the boiled fish would taste better if only I had salt. From the beginning of my Eskimo residence I had suffered from this lack."

Once during his stay, he had the good fortune to visit with some Americans. Here's what he wrote: "For the few days of my visit I enjoyed the excellent New England cooking, but when I left Herschel Island I returned without reluctance to the Eskimo meals of fish and cold water. It seemed to me that, mentally and physically, I had never been in better health in my life."

As you can see, the all-meat/fish diet did not make him sick. He went to Bellevue so that the results would be witnessed by medical authorities and no one would have to take his word on it.

Sheldon

[suze_c]

Sheldon, you are most likely right about his checking into the hospital for verification of the diet. I submit the following about the all-meat diet of Stefannson:Stefansson, who was a few pounds over-weight at the beginning, lost his excess weight in the first few weeks on the all-meat diet. His basal expenditure of energy (metabolism or general rate of food using) rose from 60.96 calories to 66.38 calories per hour during the period of the weight loss, indicating an increase of 8.9%. He continued the diet a full year, with no apparent ill effects. His blood cholesterol level at the end of the year, while he was still on the diet, was 51 mg. lower than it had been at the start. (Remember this when reading about the next objection: the possibility of heart disease.) It rose a little after he resumed an ordinary, mixed diet. After losing his excess weight he maintained constant weight the rest of the year, though food was taken as desired. His total intake ranged from 2,000 to 3,100 calories a day. He derived, by choice, about 80% of his energy needs from fat and 20% from protein. These proportions are close to those derived by a person from his own tissues during prolonged fasting. The instinctive choice of about 80 % of the calories from fat seems to be based on selection by the metabolic processes of the body. It was found that with carbohydrate restricted in the diet, the appetite for fat greatly increased. The body adapted itself to a greater use of fat for energy when this substance was supplied in increased amounts So here we have from eating an all-meat diet: a raise in the BMR of 8.9%, 51 mg. DROP in blood cholesterol levels,which coincidentally ROSE some after going back to an ordinary,mixed diet,and a daily caloric intake from 2,000-3,100. Interesting eh?

[Sheldon]

Very interersting! Thanks. Where does the quote come from?

Sheldon

[suze_c]

Sheldon, Here is the website where I got the quote from. I gave you the specific chapter, and it is about 2/3rds of the way down... however being the reader that you are... I think that you will do what I did, and read the entire presentation: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/ I found it to be most informative, and have copied some of the information for my own benefits.


Quote Source(click here) (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/chap3.htm)

[Sheldon]

I hate to misspell names. :)

Some places the anthropologist's name is spelled Stefannson. Other places it's Stefansson. The second way looks right to me. But I don't which is correct.

Sheldon

[suze_c]

Sheldon, I know what you mean.I hate misspelling names as well, but then again I hate doing it at all! :lol: I have affectionately been called the Spelling Nazi by people in a chat before due to my penchant for correcting spelling errors! heheh Although I do not admit to being a perfect speller, most of my errors are typoes! I take pride in being able to spell well. I was in the county spelling bee when I was younger, having been top speller in 1975, and in 1972-1974, I was runner-up.I also received state honors for achieving high marks on the spelling portion of the scholastic achievement tests, and also got 2nd in state for my test results as well in 1974. I abhor some of the grammatical and spelling errors I receive in e-mails... some are atrocious!!! Well, I am off to a good start of the day; venting about spelling and grammar :lol: But being an avid reader such as yourself, I thought that perhaps you would understand what I was talking about :agree: Forgive any errors in this... I am not fully awake yet :lol:

[davemm]

I wanted to take ths opportunity to comment on Gregory Ellis's postings about the second law of thermodynamics and other issues related to calories and diets. I realize I may be a bit late as he appears not to have posted for a while, but I wanted to put my two cents worth in anyway....

As I understand it, the issue is very much about the type, or source, of calories - not all calories are "created equally". To illustrate, consider the following example: Assume that Ellis and I weigh the same and we each go on, say, a 3,500 calorie a day diet. Mine is all carbohydrates and his is all fat. (Let's not worry about protiens and nutrients for the moment and assume minimal exercise). It won't be long before I start to gain weight. However, Gregory won't, because as he, and many others, have pointed out, his body can't store fat from ingested fat. Moreover, as I understand it, depending upon how Ellis eats his fat, he may even loose weight on his diet, by judiciously timing his injestion rate. Since his body can't store the fat that he eats, he could eat, say 3,500 calories for breakfast on day 1 and 3,500 calories for late on day 2. It would appear to be possible that, by the end of day 2, before his late meal, he may have to dip into his stored fat to supply hs ongoing needs.

As a professional engineer, I do have an understanding of the seond law of thermodynamics (along with the first and third, Newton's Maxwells, Einstein's and many other laws). However, the issues here are more complex than can be explained with the notion of entropy - after all, it doen't even fully explain even the simplest thermodynamic systems, that's why there is a first and third law! It seems to me that the issue of calories and weight loss/gain is much more complex. Although I don't completely understand the biology or biochemistry behind the above example, my guess is that the body digests the fats and breaks them down into fatty acids at a fairly constant rate. However those fatty acids don't release their energy until they are metabolized in the muscle cells, by going through the Kreb's cycle. If your muscles don't need them immediately and there is no way to store them, they are simply excreted, before they have given up all their energy. I know this is greatly oversimplified (and possibly not even correct), and would appreciate Ellis or anyone else's comments.

I must confess that I haven't read Ellis's book, but I think that if he wishes to use this forum to expresss his ideas or attempt to make a point, he should make that point here and not refer obliquely to his book.

[rjakubin]

Interesting concept Davemm! Firstly you need Insulin to store fat, either in muscle tissue or adipose tissue. Secondly, Udo Erasmus states in his book that the body can only absorb 10 grams of fat an hour. Is he right? I don't know? I think it's only long chain fatty acids. 15 carbon length and larger. Small chain and medium chain fatty acids are absorbed by the portal vein of the liver.

[davemm]

______________________________________________________________
Udo Erasmus states in his book that the body can only absorb 10 grams of fat an hour. Is he right? I don't know? I think it's only long chain fatty acids. 15 carbon length and larger. Small chain and medium chain fatty acids are absorbed by the portal vein of the liver.
______________________________________________________________


Thanks for your comments rjakubin. Do you mean absorbing fat from food - i.e. in the intestines? As I understand it, the fats are converted into fatty acids at this point. Are these fatty acids then reeabsorbed by the liver - or do I have it all wrong? Is this rate constant or is it regulated in response to needs? i.e. is it the same while sleeping as it is when excercising vigorously? If so (i.e. constant) do you know what happens to the fatty acids if the body doesn't require those fatty acids immediately?
Dave

[oldskool79]

I have just read through most of this thread and its amazing to me how many people will argue with Dr. Ellis and call him a liar when they haven't even read his book.

I have read it (along with Atkins, Zone, BFL, and many others) and every claim Dr. Ellis makes is absolutely true. You will learn exactly how the body uses food and exactly what you need to do to control your weight. You will learn that there are no such thing as "metablic advantages" like Dr. Atkins claims.

The fact is, calories count. Dr. Ellis gives us the science to back up his claims. Now, before you disagree with me - read the book first - because you can't form an opinion on something you know nothing about.

Yes, the book is $65 - which is on the high side for a book. But it is well worth it for the knowledge you'll gain.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by oldskool79
The fact is, calories count. Dr. Ellis gives us the science to back up his claims. Now, before you disagree with me - read the book first

I'm always willing to read such books, if I can afford them and find it legitimate, allowing me to browse before I decide, as I can do with all low-carb books in the bookstore.. But I always get suspicious when there are too many claims about a "truth", when none of those who claime it are willing to substantiate it with a scientific reference, or medical study. There are tens of publicly accessable medical research to the opposite, why would I pay $65, to find a magical secret formula, that has no such publicly accessable research to substanciate it?

People are not as niive as many assume them to be. Especially now with all the research coming out to disimiss such theories, and substantiate the low-carb fact, vs. the low-calorie theory.

Wa'il

[bluesmoke]

Actually, Oldskool79, you're wrong. 4 studies comparing low fat to low carb diets came out this year. In every one the low carb dieters consumed more calories AND lost more weight than the low fat dieters. There is a demonstrated metabolic advantage. Truth that I didn't need to spend $65 dollars to find out. DLB

[oldskool79]

Originally posted by tamarian
I'm always willing to read such books, if I can afford them and find it legitimate, allowing me to browse before I decide, as I can do with all low-carb books in the bookstore.. But I always get suspicious when there are too many claims about a "truth", when none of those who claime it are willing to substantiate it with a scientific reference, or medical study. There are tens of publicly accessable medical research to the opposite, why would I pay $65, to find a magical secret formula, that has no such publicly accessable research to substanciate it?

People are not as niive as many assume them to be. Especially now with all the research coming out to disimiss such theories, and substantiate the low-carb fact, vs. the low-calorie theory.

Wa'il

You don't need to buy the book to find out the secret, as Dr. Ellis lists it right on his website at www.ultimatedietsecrets.com. He also posted it right on this forum. The secret is that calories do count.

In addition, numerous studies are cited through out the book. In fact, Dr. Ellis doesn't make any claims without first showing the reader the scientific proof that backs up those claims.

If you don't feel comfortable paying $65 for the book, then by all means don't buy it. But then you can't possibly dismiss Dr. Elliss' theories if you don't read his book because you don't have all the information.

[oldskool79]

Originally posted by bluesmoke
Actually, Oldskool79, you're wrong. 4 studies comparing low fat to low carb diets came out this year. In every one the low carb dieters consumed more calories AND lost more weight than the low fat dieters. There is a demonstrated metabolic advantage. Truth that I didn't need to spend $65 dollars to find out. DLB

And what are these 4 studies?

[Gregory]

It was well established in the 1950s and 1960s that there was no metabolic advantage to the low-carbohydrate diet, well before Atkins published his book. In 1968, Dr. Francisco Grande restated and proved the validity of the Laws of Thermodynamics as a basis against which one could test various theories that were less rigorous such as body composition tests. These new stuides are poor studies and since they go against a criteria that is far more robust, by definition, they must be flawed. They are also counter to studies already completed 40 years ago. Dr. Leibel, in the 1990s, of Rockefeller University, published extensively that the carbohydrate content of the diet made no difference in weight loss once water balance was equilibrated.

I am not an opponent of the low-carbohydrate diet, I only an opponent to Atkins Version of it. Carbohydrates DO NOT control bodyweight -- all nutritional scientists know this and it is as true as the sunrise and sunset.

I am so curious as to the why of everyone's need to support such a fallacious argument as metabolic advantage. You all claim your interest in science but it's clear that none of you can either read it or have done a comprehensive review of the extant literature on this subject. I have and there is no such thing as the metabolic advantage as described by Dr. Atkins. Even one of the scientists that he has used to support his claims (Dr. Charlotte Young) had shown that as body weight decreases calories needs drop.

Dr. Dale Schoeller has validated the Energy Balance Equation via his stuides using doubly labeled water. I say quit supporting the wrong, old, fat man, and find out how it really works. I know you won't and that's why it is a waste of my time to post on this board because the only thing thriving here is dogma and beliefs that the earth is still flat.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by oldskool79
But then you can't possibly dismiss Dr. Elliss' theories if you don't read his book because you don't have all the information.

Of course we can.

That's shows no courage and conviction, if all he is willing to state is the claim, and not the studies it is based on.

For one simple reason, the references and medical studies are not owned by him, and not under his copyright.

We are listing all the studies and scientific proof here, and so does Dr. Atkins on his site.

Dr. Ellis refused to do so, and insisted we buy the book. Dr. Atkins makes no such demands, and readers can both compare these attitudes.

In addition, Dr. Ellis shows no respect to readers, by stating we won't understand any scientific proof. So from his own words, I can imagine the book won't have much science, and is merely his opions.

Wa'il

[tamarian]

Originally posted by oldskool79
And what are these 4 studies?

They are listed in the Studies page, and the Studies forum.

Wa'il

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Gregory
I say quit supporting the wrong, old, fat man, and find out how it really works. I know you won't and that's why it is a waste of my time to post on this board because the only thing thriving here is dogma and beliefs that the earth is still flat.

That "old fat man" at least has some respect to readers, and willing to cite scientific references, by year, volume and page number.

He never hides behind "buy first", and lists all his references on his web site.

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

Hmmm...Now I've got to wonder about that. How come when I followed a low fat/high carb diet, I couldn't lose weight unless I stayed below 1,500 calories a day and on low carb I can eat 1,800 calories a day and still lose even though I'm 8 years older? Metabolism slows down with age, so if that metabolic advantage doesn't exist, I should have to eat less calories now than I did then to lose weight if calories are all that matter and although I haven't tested this theory because I'm not willing to send my blood sugars spiraling out of control again, I'm willing to bet that it would be true if I were to attempt to lose weight on a low fat/high carb diet again. I'd also like to point out that Dr. Atkins doesn't say that you absolutely should never have to count calories and he doesn't encourage you to gorge yourself. You are told to eat until you are satisfied, not stuffed. He states quite frankly in his book that low carb is not to be used as an excuse to gorge yourself on low carb foods! Many people have a difficult time eating enough calories on low carb because their appetite disappears and they are simply not hungry. Yes, it's not likely that you will lose weight consuming 3,000 calories a day even on low carb (that metabolic advantage has its limits) but I'd challenge anyone to find more than a handful of people who do that on a consistent basis when following low carb.
I visited Dr. Ellis' web page and all he does is tease you with his opinion and tell you to buy his book to get the details. At least Dr. Atkins is honest enough to put the details and the studies supporting it right on his webpage.
I'll say again, one size does not fit all when it comes to diets. Low cal might work just fine for some folks, but it doesn't for others. Dr. Ellis' plan just might work for a lot of people, but I'd be willing to bet that it's not necessary for at least that many more people who follow low carb (Dr. Atkin's plan or any other) with great success.

[PoofieD]

Of any "proven" fact that there is "no metabolic" advantage.
what I am aware of is a rather dirty business dealing with agriculturalists pushing their products starting back at this time.
And its not Dr Atkins who has shown that.
America got "oiled" alright back at that time.. and slowly but surely we got put on the diet that has brought us all to the point of needing a diet that makes SENSE!
Old "fat" man?? How about if you actually POST some scientific date you say is out there.. but before you do... you might want to check out sites that DO talk about the business dealings that had nothing to do with science that started to push real protiens and fats OUT the door for unsafe manufactured fats such as canola?
Poofie

PS: Lisa girl.. how is it that they keep MISSING the folks that DO find the key like EUREKA !:-)

[Gregory]

You write as if I am opposed to the low-carbhydrate diet. I AM NOT.

I agree with you about the agriculterists. Why do you interpret me as if to say I suggest eating grains? I only state that calories control, not carbos. An earlier post argured that one ate more on low-carb and lost and ate less on low-fat and gained. This is in dispute with many scientific publications. Atkins misinterpreted and manipulated the "science" of his day to meet his needs. If you understood how to read these papers, you would see that. But you don't. Your "stories" are your biases.

Until, as I did, to remove any biases, you duplicate your foods that you eat and eat one part and burn the other in a bomb calorimeter, as I did, to determine the calorie content of what you are eating, then you have not controlled for your subjective biases. This is the failing of your "science." As a scientist, I am trying to tell you that, but you refuse to hear my message. To you, I am just another huckster salesperson. Wa'il wants to believe that the presentation of a study is proof of a position's validilty. It is not. Atkins brutally misinterpreted all of the studies he reviewed because he needed to to support his dogma. Their listing is no proof of his interpretation of the science.

You don't want to hear that. You want to say the sun will not rise tomorrow, you want to disavow Laws that are in operation. You cannot do this with your speculative ideas about what you eat and don't eat. You want to call me names. You want to kill the messenger. You want to deny the inviolate Laws of Nature; you want to construct your own Laws according to the fat man Atkins. If you opened your eyes, you would see that his diet did not work for him, he is a fat man. But why face reality because delusion is so much more comfortable. No one was more captive to this mythology than I was. I am only trying to help but all types of negative comments are made about me in respect to getting money from you or not representing science. Atkins brutalized science but none of you want to hear that because your Atkins religion pushes idolatry. Then you invoke my failure to provide science to help you decide if I add anything to the party.

Why would I? The science is my WORK PRODUCT. You say Atkins presents it but you never question any of it because you don't have the skills or the training. Tell me Wa'il, what's your PhD in? What training do you have to do the pros and cons in the scientific literature game?. None, I'm sure. Because it's published, you accept it. I challenge you to go get all of the papers published by Dr. Dale Schoeller and report back to your minions what you have found. Do you even know how to do a literature search? And, after that, do you know how to play pros and cons. I doubt it. You talk out the corner of your mouth reproducing quotes out of context (as you'll do to this piece), providing nothing of substance picking on me because I give no references (that you couldn't read) and supporting the fat old man because you are committed to that. Why question your beliefs?

I know that none of my dialogue will get me anywhere with you or the readers of this forum but with 3 margueritas under my belt, I really don't give a shit.

Will I change your mind? Not the slightest iota. I can't wait to read your response because it will confirm that you cannot be changed. Open-minded-ness and exploration of facts is not your MO. I've got to go mix another marguertita and put the lights on the tree. Wallow in your disbeliefs. I aint' fat, I'm a buffed racehorse lookin' good to the max. Other than Trainer Dan, no photos on this forum convince me that any of you has a clue. Please, spare me, don't argue, just blow me off as another buffoon. I don't need or want your money. Don't buy my book, please don't buy it. You don't need me and I don't need you. I've got abs while you're still tryin' to figure out how to get rid of your pot belly. I see your weights and goals listed. I ain't impressed with how fat so many of you are. But, hang in there with Atkins, the fat old boy will deliver you. You just don't need me. Hang with the fat boy.

By the way, when I was on his radio show in 1989, he took me to dinner, where I taught him all about the biochemistry of ketosis, and he ate the potato off my plate. Any of you ever have dinner with Atkins?

[Lisa N]

Poofie...

I'll be the first to admit that there are people who don't do well on low carb, but I find myself asking over and over, "Is it design flaw or operator error?". Nearly every person who I have talked to who did not do well on low carb wasn't following the plan correctly (not enough water, no supplements, no veggies, too many calories/not enough calories, not enough carbs/too many carbs, etc..) and who might have done really well had they known someone experienced in low carb who could help them pinpoint the possible problems like a sensitivity to arachidonic acid, sensitivity to dairy or yeast overgrowth and give them advice on how to overcome those problems. That's one of the things I love about this board; there's a wealth of information and experience here and they don't tease people with generalities and then ask them to shell out 65 bucks for the specifics.

[Lisa N]

Gregory,

I'm going to have to disagree with you again on the whole calories vs. carbs issue as I did when I posted the study on page 2 that seems to disagree with what you are saying and I note that you never responded to. Here you have a study where those consuming the most calories (by a good amount) lost the most weight. The major difference is in where their calories were coming from (carbs vs. fat and protein). Do calories matter? Yes. You will never see me recommeding that someone consume a pound of bacon every day (or any day for that matter) even on low carb. Are they the end all and be all of dieting? No. Yes, your intake has to be a reasonable one, but for most people there is no need to micromanage every calorie that goes into their mouths in order to be successful at losing weight.
Incidentally, I'm not following the Atkins plan, nor do I idolize him. I've also never had dinner with him nor do I know his weight and current measurments, but I have to wonder since when somone who is on maintainance can't have a baked potato once in a while and how the fact that Dr. Atkins ate a baked potato when you ate dinner with him justifies your arguments and position? I'm just saying that this works for me as well as a whole lot of other people on this board who don't feel a need to burn what they eat in a bomb calorimeter to confirm the calorie count of what they ate and they're losing weight anyway and I'm pretty much of the opinion "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If I want to check where my calorie counts are for the day, Fitday works prettty well for me.

[PoofieD]

What we want is your data.
Not whether you have had dinner with God.. :-)
Just the data sir.
Poofie!

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Gregory
Tell me Wa'il, what's your PhD in? What training do you have to do the pros and cons in the scientific literature game?. None, I'm sure.

Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. But this is like many other things you're so sure about.

And this illustrates why your arrogance is the best reason why no one really wants to buy your book. If none of your readers can wave a paper, then they have no right to demand some scientific support for your argument? If this is done while advertising your book, I'm afraid it can only get worst once the money is paid.

Science, logic and engineering is my background, and how I earn my living.

Why are you so afraid to list any of those mysterious studies that you claim support you point?

Which studies did Dr. Atkins twist?

These referenced studies are not your work, they are published in scientific journals, and can be accessed from the public library.

Your interpretation of the studies, is your opinion, and that is the body of your work. For me to value your opinion, enough to pay for it, I have to know you will respect the reader, and can hold your ground, with medical references, and scientific background, not angry, arrogant tantrusm aginst a "fat old man".

The Earth was not prroved to be round by a person demanding money to show their evidence.

I have made my point way earlier in this thread, that thermodynamics is not the only aspect of metabolism. If this is the only magical formula you have as a scientific reference, then with all due respect, you clearly don't know the basic elements of science and logic.

Wa'il

[Sheldon]

The eminent nutrition scientist Mary Enig (http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/hd.html), along with Sally Fallon, wrote:

"An interesting finding in the Framingham study was that those who ate the most saturated fat, the most calories and the most cholesterol were the most physically active. They also weighed the least and had the lowest levels of serum cholesterol!"

That tells us something about the simplistic application of thermodynamics to human metabolism.

Sheldon

[pegm]

Gregory,

I don’t need to be an electrician to know that when I push the power switch the television turns on – even my 16 month old granddaughter can turn on the television. We don’t need to be scientists or engineers and know all of the intricacies of the why and how the television works – we just know that it does.

The same applies to each person’s personal health plan. Every scientist and diet guru can cite some portion of some study to support their view – everything is subject to interpretation. Remember, there’s a good reason why it’s called Medical ‘Practice’!

I do know that I, along with many others on this board, have found a way to take control of my life. This is a support forum. We support each other in our quest for a better, more healthy lifestyle, and many of us have never felt better in our entire lives. I know that I may never be Twiggy, but I am thinner, more fit, and healthier than I was a year ago, and I continue to improve. I no longer need meds for high blood pressure or acid reflux, and I had my 8 year old hyperactive grandson on roller blades tell me to slow down because I was walking too fast for him. Others here have seen similar, or even much more dramatic improvements in their health and the way they feel, yet we are using many different plans and a multitude of variations of those plans.

No single plan is best for all people – when it comes to health plans there is no ‘one size fits all’. We each need to find the plan that works best for us – whether it’s Atkins, Protein Power, Weight Watchers, or even your plan. But I have never been convinced by someone who spends all of their time condemning other people’s plans rather than telling me why theirs is good. The negativity is a turn-off, and it smacks of someone who is trying to distract me from looking too closely at their plan. If someone wants to convince me that they have a good idea, then tell me why it’s good – don’t spend all of your time telling why everyone else’s is bad.

[oldskool79]

Peg,
I know this was directed towards Gregory, but since I have read his book I would like to reply to some of your comments.

Originally posted by pegm
Gregory,

I don’t need to be an electrician to know that when I push the power switch the television turns on – even my 16 month old granddaughter can turn on the television. We don’t need to be scientists or engineers and know all of the intricacies of the why and how the television works – we just know that it does.

Your absolutely right you don't need to know how a TV works to turn it on. But what if your TV is broken? How can you fix it if you don't know how it works? It's the same thing with wieght control. If you want change (fix) your body, you must understand how your body uses food.

The same applies to each person’s personal health plan. Every scientist and diet guru can cite some portion of some study to support their view – everything is subject to interpretation. Remember, there’s a good reason why it’s called Medical ‘Practice’!

I agree with you on this point as well. People are always going to have different interpretations of things. I'm sure Dr. Ellis agrees with this point too. But should that stop him from sharing his view? After all, isn't Atkins and all the other authors simply sharing their interpretation of the data as well?


I do know that I, along with many others on this board, have found a way to take control of my life. This is a support forum. We support each other in our quest for a better, more healthy lifestyle, and many of us have never felt better in our entire lives. I know that I may never be Twiggy, but I am thinner, more fit, and healthier than I was a year ago, and I continue to improve. I no longer need meds for high blood pressure or acid reflux, and I had my 8 year old hyperactive grandson on roller blades tell me to slow down because I was walking too fast for him. Others here have seen similar, or even much more dramatic improvements in their health and the way they feel, yet we are using many different plans and a multitude of variations of those plans.
If you had actually read his book, you would know that Dr. Ellis doesn't force anyone to follow a specific way of eating. He only has one rule, and only one rule. That rule is to burn more calories than you consume. Outside of that, it doesn't matter if your following Atkins, Weight Watchers, Richard Simmons or your own specialized diet - you will lose weight. Dr. Ellis does give specific (and very useful) ways to optimize your weightloss and control hunger. This is primarily done through a low carb diet. This website is a resource for people on a low carb diet - not just Atkins. I don't think that Dr. Ellis is wrong in sharing his "version" of this diet and trying to explain his research.

No single plan is best for all people – when it comes to health plans there is no ‘one size fits all’. We each need to find the plan that works best for us – whether it’s Atkins, Protein Power, Weight Watchers, or even your plan. But I have never been convinced by someone who spends all of their time condemning other people’s plans rather than telling me why theirs is good. The negativity is a turn-off, and it smacks of someone who is trying to distract me from looking too closely at their plan. If someone wants to convince me that they have a good idea, then tell me why it’s good – don’t spend all of your time telling why everyone else’s is bad.

What you are arguing is the way in which Dr. Ellis has chosen to market his plan - not his plan itself. I can see why you might be wary of examining it because of the way he has chosen to present it. Unless you read the book, there really is no way to convince you.

I followed the Atkins diet for about a year - and I had great success. I only needed to lose about 10 pounds - so the main reason I did it was to maintain my body weight. I am certainly not anti-Atkins. His program is great, as long as one understands that it isn't a license to stuff your face with as much food as you want.

In addition, I ultimately found it difficult to stick to extremely low carb eating for extended periods of time. I think most people on a low carb diet would agree with me.

After reading Dr. Ellis book, I know I can be much more flexible in how many carbs I eat and still maintain my weight very easily. In fact - I have such a strong understanding of how the body regulates it's weight that I know exactly what I need to do if I want to lose more weight.

If you can afford the book - buy it. Even if you don't agree with everything he says, you will gain incredible knowledge on how your body works.

If following Atkins plan is working for you and you are happy with it, by all means don't stop doing it. In fact, if it is working for you then you are already following Dr. Ellis' recommendations.

However, for those who have tried Atkins and didn't lose, or have stopped losing weight, he offers a solution.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by oldskool79
What you are arguing is the way in which Dr. Ellis has chosen to market his plan - not his plan itself.

Not really, it's the plan. If the plan itself claims to be based on the laws of thermodynamics, to apply to human intake and the amount of calories, as Dr. Ellis claims here, then that's enough to show it is misguided.

Various scientific studies proved it wrong over the last century (as quoted earlier, and ther's a lot more). The only studies supporting this claim, indirectly, are isocaloric or with various caloric amounts, with constant percentages.

This is unscientific, and clearly bad logic.

Yes, you will lose weight on any low-calorie diet. If that's what you want, follow Dr. Stanley (not Dr. Richard) Bernstein's diet, with 600 calories and vitamin injections, and that's it. And you'll lose faster on it! It is low-carb, but low- in everything else. You will lose following Richard Simmons, Weight Whachers, Jenny Craig, and any other low-calorie diet. They all work, initially, and never made the mistake of claiming to follow the laws of thermodynamics.

But no need to twist the laws of thermodynamics for such an effect. It's not a valid thermodynamic case, in an isolated thermodynamic system!

Not sure if Dr. Ellis will realize this mistake, since he has no degree in mechanical engineering. And I do not imply you have to have such a degree, but you need to make the effort to at least understand the basics of those theories, especially if you try to use them in a scientific way to support a hypothesis.

Wa'il

[GailT]

Hi Suze
I too have a son with cerebral palsy. He's a spastic quad, much more unlucky than your son is. He's only able to use an electric wheelchair.
I do have to say that I've counted everything that has gone into that boy's mouth for years and can stick up for you on this point.
My son is 30 now and still skinny as a rail.
Nothing fattening, no amount of calories nothing at all has ever made him gain an ounce.
I was turned in by his pediatrician to the state for being a neglectful mother when he failed to gain weight.
He was put into Childrens Hospital and after 2 weeks returned to me and labeled at 5 months old as a "failure to thrive" baby.
I won't get into any arguements at all with anyone over a diet of any kind but wanted to let you know that I've been where you are too.
Hang in there.
:) Gail

[gotbeer]

How can you eat MORE calories on Atkins and still lose weight? Don't the laws of thermodynamics forbid that? Not exactly, it turns out.

You can't escape thermodynamics, true, but you can step around it, and even bend it to your advantage.

Loopholes in the thermodynamic interpretation of diets ("Calories count") might include any or all of the following:

1. Excretion through elimination. (Sorry if the following offends some people, but the eyes of science should be unblinking.) The skat we eliminate is not free of calories - quite the opposite. Have you ever seen an undigested peanut, pickle fragment or corn kernel in the toilet? Proof enough to me that a calorie eaten is not necessarily a calorie burned or stored in the body. Easily absorbed carb calories might count much more highly than fat or protein calories, particularly if the latter are preferentially excreted via adequate fiber. Hence, one hole in the thermo argument - calorie count is not an absolute if some of them are literally flushed away.

2. Excretion through the skin. - Have you ever felt oily skin after a careful cleansing? The oil - the FAT - has been washed away. My skin has become much oilier since I've been on Atkins - I feel it, see it on my face, my clothes (the collars mainly) and my washcloth. How much? It would vary by person based on their amount of skin, type of skin, and bathing habits - but it is NOT zero. Hence, a second hole in the thermo argument - calorie count is not an absolute if some of them are literally being washed away.

3. Increased metabolism. Discussed at length previously in this thread, but I still find the Atkins case compelling, based on both the sounder science and the anecdotal evidence of my friends and me. I have more energy, sleep less, and feel warmer since I've become a low carb devotee. My mental processes are sharper and faster - my productivity at work, as measured by completed tasks - has spiked sharply upward since Atkins. Thus, the third hole in the thermo argument - calorie count is not an absolute if more of them are being burned away.

How can you bend thermodynamics to your will?

1. Flush more (increase your fiber & water; decrease preferentially absorbed calories [meaning carbs, of course]; and don't overchew your food ;) ).

2. Wash more - encourage your body to excrete as much fat through your skin oils as you can. YMMV, of course.

3. Burn more - wear less clothing - walk in a cool breeze - shiver more - forget to wear your coat - drink icy drinks - turn the thermostat to a lower temperature setting - leave the ceiling fan on and reduce the number of blankets on your bed - anything to rev up the fuel burning in your body. Your body wants to maintain its core temperature - NEEDS to burn that fat - if you give it a good reason to. And yes, even exercise will help - but don't exercise with extra weight bags on your body - any fool can do that - be smarter and exercise with extra ICE BAGS on your body - my endurance soars when I wrap an icy towel around my neck, especially in hot weather, and my ability to thermodynamically maximize my fat-burning grows, too.

These are theories, of course, but they are based on known science, observation, and personal experience. Rigorous experimentation and/or studies could prove or disprove them. They are working for me, and if they work for you, then it is all good. I don't know everything, but I do know that people who claim to have all the answers and get irritated when they are questioned are not worthy of the mantle of science.

[Ogden]

"Seek the company of those who are looking for the truth, and flee from those who have found it."
-- Vaclav Havel

[wbahn]

I read a fair portion of the original article and just couldn't go any further. After the second or third time that he claimed, in absolute terms, that he had learned everything there was to know about the subject, red lights were flashing. Especially after having asked the rhetorical question about some why people plateaued even on reduced calorie diets and then answer his own question with, "I don't know". Well, if he doesn't know that, then how can he know everything about the subject? It's been my experience that people that think they have learned everything about a subject actually know very little - they don't even know enough to recognize how much they don't know! We call these people "sophomores" - Sophisticated Moron - a very real phenomenon that many people - myself included - go through at about that time in their education. You have reached a level of competence with the fundamental, simplified material that you feel you have mastered everything because you have not yet delved into the next level of not-so-simplified material that generally rocks your world and knocks you off your high horse.

At first I was expecting a rational paper that would focus on other aspects of weight control other than DIET COMPOSITION as he always capitalizes it. I was expecting him to talk about the need for exercise - to which I would have pointed out that Atkins himself says that if you aren't exercising you aren't doing Atkins.

But his concept of thermodynamics (as far as I was able to keep reading the diatribe) is very sophomorish. As others have pointed out - thermodynamics deals with ALL of the energy forms being in balance. A gallon of gasoline has so much energy. But if I put that gallon into two identical cars and drive them identical distances in an identical manner one will go a lot farther than the other if one of them has a hole in the gas tank.

For those that don't think feces contain quite a bit of energy, consider that many families used to provide all of their home's heating and cooking energy by using cow dung. Many insects and even many higher animals get most or all of their food intake from eating dung. Organic fertilizer provides the food for the plants that grown in it.

As a result, fairly minor shifts in the percentage of your calorie intake that is eliminated has a huge impact on the energy balance.

As for metabolism being the same for everyone - then how does he explain the generally humongous calorie needs of high endurance athletes such as marathon runners and cyclists? Their calorie consumption increase far exceeds what is required for the activities they participate in. Simple (to first order). If the body is to develop the ability to process energy at an increased level for a sustained period of time, then that same ability is going to require a significantly higher bias point even when those abilities are not being used. High output engines consume quite a bit of fuel even when idling.

[Froggirl]

I have spent way too long soaking all of this up. I am new to the group and an glad to see so many opinions. Here is mine..

NO ONE has had all the answers for me ( and I am guessing you as well). I have had to work thru my regimine and see what works for my particular body type.

IF EVERYONE HAD THE SAME METABOLIC RATE NONE OF US WOULD BE HERE! I am not going to quote articles, I can see by the postings most of us are thinking clearly.

I have been diagnosed with SYndrome X... I see alot of you probably have the same problems. In 1997 I weighed in at 100...I started this process at least 180. I was having blood sugar comas...I have hypothyroidism. The whole insulin resistance family of fun. I have never in my life lived on more than 1200 calories a day. (This is a average).

In the last 5 years I have seen no less than 10 diffrent doctors all with a diffrent plan of attack. Low Carb does work for me. Thats what I am going with. That is why I am here to seek advice of others IN my situation. I find the whole sales pitch in the beginning to be a "praying" behavior.

I do very much look forward to hearing everyones opinions. As long as you aren't selling them to me! :rolleyes:

[suzanneM]

some people just can't handle tequilla... :daze:

[gawdess]

Jesus Buddy! I dont even buy Atkins brand stuff...and I am on the plan! Move on...

[mrfreddy]

well, Dr. Ellis, we're waiting for your reply! And your revised editions of your "books"...


guess you didn't really know "everything", did you, ha haaa...


http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hscarb143494735oct14,0,5180919,print.story?coll=ny-health-headlines




THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

October 14, 2003

Fort Lauderdale, Fla. - A new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention, long espoused by the late Robert Atkins, that people on low-carb diets can consume more calories without gaining weight. Yet skeptics say these dieters simply must be eating less.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more. The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much weight during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

During the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about 7 pounds. But for some reason, it didn't.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said. Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie-is-a-calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded." Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either low-fat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils. In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on the low-fat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds.

[cc48510]

I've lost close to 100 pounds on Atkins...I've hit plateaus just like everyone else. They last for a few days to several weeks. I just waited them out. If someone quits because they hit a plateau for a week or two they aren't really putting any effort into it. I did Low-Calorie/Low-Fat for 6 months, I was stalled for 4-5 MONTHS before I finally gave up. Giving up after a week or two is just plain not trying. As for Ketosis, I don't know if I'm in a deep ketosis or not. The strips stopped registering months ago, but I'm still losing.

As for why Atkins works...you are partly right...it does supress appetite. That is the biggest reason it works. But, it also increases metabolism as much as a few hundred Calories. While this isn't as significant as the several hundred or even thousand plus Calorie reduction in intake, it helps. Even a 250 kcal/day boost will have a large effect on fat loss. Another reason it works as compared to a Low-Fat/Low-Calorie diet is that folks have alot more energy...and this often translates into more exercise. Even 30 minutes/day more excercise can significantly increase fat loss.

Calories count...But, I don't think humans were meant to count them. The ability to measure Calories in food has not been around for too long. If you had to carefully count your Calories, how'd folks stay skinny for millions of years ??? Simple, as long as you eat the right foods...most of the time your intake [of Calories] will regulate itself.

Calories in - Calories out will always be the basic equation. Some folks just don't seem to accept that Calories out can vary other than by exercise. That's why some folks are thin as rails, yet eat twice what I ate before going on Atkins [as estimated by food receipts] and Exercise less. Atkins boosts Metabolism...Albeit not by anywhere near the thousands of extra Calories some folks can eat and not get fat. I believe Metabolism vary considerably (thousands of Calories.) Some folks have very slow Metabolisms which make it very difficult to lose weight...While others are blessed with super fast Metabolisms that allow them to inhale entire bags [BIG BAGS] of Potato Chips washed down with 64 oz. Big Gulps without gaining an ounce. Exercise plays a good role, but it doesn't explain how a guy who sits on the couch watching football all day, inhaling bags of Potato Chips, and washing them down with Gallons of Soda doesn't gain an ounce while another person has to exercise religiously and watch his Calories very closely to keep from gaining weight.

[Hellistile]

Dr Ellis apparently has too much time on his hands. Atkins bashing (and low carb bashing) has become a favourite past time for many people. Once again (as in previous posts), I must state that Atkins DID NOT invent low carbing, nor did the author's of NeanderThin, Protein Power, The Carbohydrate Addit's Diet, etc. Atkins is the one who was persistent enough to get the message through and gained the most popularity for the low-carb way of eating. Although it is difficult for people to believe there was a history of eating before they appeared on this planet, low carbing was the sole way of eating for hundreds of thousands of years before the birth of Atkins. And the longer humanity strays from this way of eating, the more humanity suffers, as shown by death statistics which become more horrendous every year. Understanding this is not rocket science, it is very simple. History has proven it.
All I know and care to know is that low carbing works for me. I feel great, a number of my previous ailments have entirely disappeared, and a number have been alleviated and I am only 1/4 of my way towards achieving my goal. Sure I only lose approximately 2 pounds per month on average, but what's the hurry. I'm happy, healthy and eating well without hunger. I eat lot's of meat, saturated fat, fruits, nuts, and vegetables (AS MUCH AS I WANT WITHOUT COUNTING CALORIES). Who the heck cares about thermodynamics, and all that other stuff, unless, of course, you are trying to sell books, products, or have nothing better to do.

[jem-mom]

I just wanted to say thanks for this tread. I have been receiving alot of emails reguarding Dr. Ellis's book. I was shocked at the 65.00 cost, and appalled at the sales pitch, but I still had that nagging doubt of should I try to come up with the money for this?
My decision... Nope, Omaha Steaks is calling my name more :lol: .
Jeanne in Jacksonville

[Eveee]

I wanted to thank EVERYONE who shared their opinions on this thread.
I learned a LOT! By the way, I am from Costa Rica, so forgive me if
I don't use english properly or " misspell" some words.

I have PCOS and have been trying to loose the weight I gained for quite a while. I would like to buy the book but $65...anyway, if I buy if I promise you
I will share the secret if it works for me ( pardon me Dr. Ellis, I could not keep the secret of something that I have the certainty that could help other people).

:read2:

[gymeejet]

diet composition does matter, but not in the way that most people think. our body is a machine. it requires particular nutrients to do particular tasks. the main reason we gain weight is that we are ingesting foods that we may have in excess, and at the same time not delivering to the body what it is asking of us. so we can certainly eat too many carbs. we can also not eat enough carbs. we can eat too much fat, or not enough fat. we can eat too much protein, or not enough protein. our goal should be to understand what our individual body needs, and then provide it with that - this will give us optimal health.

in regards to metabolic rates - the laws of thermodynamics do not have anything to do with the regulation of our metabolism. that rate, which is different for all of us, is regulated by our thyroid gland. for whatever reason, people were born to have different normal levels of thyroid, which controls the rate of our metabolisms. this in no way contradicts the laws of energy in - energy out. just some of us burn faster, so we must fuel up more often.

if we look at other animal species, some have ridiculously high metabolic rates, when compared to us - for example, most insects.

[Kestrel]

Insects are cold-blooded. People aren't, although I presume we've all run into some exceptions...

[gymeejet]

kestrel, i am not sure of what your point is, with regards to thermodynamics.

[silverfang]

this doc gregory is exactly right about weight loss. if you do what he says you will lose weight. BUT so was dr.A. Dr. A never said you could eat as much as you wanted. he said to eat until satisfied not stuffed. So dr. A was telling us to limit our calories too. just not in so many words.
What Dr. G wants us to do is set a limit, a number to go by, in calories. Regardless of hunger you may experience.
In my weight loss experience hunger is the will breaker. If you get hungry enough, often enough, you will cheat.
That is why I would rather do atkins than his program. The point is not to lose weight the fastest or most consistently, but to be on a program you can LIVE with. Any one can make a diet you can lose weight on, even down to your goal. But is that program going to be reasonable? Will you be hungry all the time?
Atkins has provided me with a way to lose weight in a way that I am not hungry nor do I feel deprived all the time. I think that was his whole point, to design a program you can do for life.
Also you don't have to spend any money to do atkins. all the info you need is free on the web.

[322432]

43 years of study of flawed, political, misunderstood experments and studies; not much credibility for me. Calories count? A calorie is a unit of heat.How long do I have to stand out in the cold, and at What temperature, everyday to not gain weight? Also, What about the calories that I flush down the drain every other day or two? Do I deduct them? Or is there some magic formula that only you and God know? How do you account for the double blind study, just recently, that found low carbers could eat 300 calories/day more than low fatters and still lose more weight with everything else being equal?
If you're ever going to convince anyone that can and will think, you need to get up to date with your facts.
One thing I have noticed about those of us running on ketones, is that we can think better than we did when we ran on sugar. Also, I believe that I saw the results of a study confirming this fact. I believe %25 better was the number.It seems to me that the more one has studied the things that donnot work, and the things that are wrong, the less credible they would be; but this may not make sense to the 75 percenters.

[mcsblues]

One thing I have noticed about those of us running on ketones, is that we can think better than we did when we ran on sugar. Also, I believe that I saw the results of a study confirming this fact. I believe %25 better was the number.

Welcome to the forum 322432. I am one of those who is convinced that I am mentally sharper on low carb (I tried low fat/high carb for 20 years).

I would be very interested if you can find a reference to the study you mention.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[322432]

Not sure where I read the %25 thing; I read many things every night about fat, cholestrol, statins, arthritis, fiber, cancer, ect. If I run across it again, I'll post it. I, like you, know that I am mentally quicker after breaking the sugar addiction. That reminds me, I read something the other night expaining the reason this happens--something to do with insulin and the nuerons or whatever they are called; seems like the're overproduced and the receptors become resistant or something to that effect. Anyway, to me it follows that if the rest of our body becomes insulin resistant, our brain can not escape either.
These are the things that really irk me about the trained professionals that could really understand these things, if they would only open their minds to keep learning instead of trying to convince us that they have all the answers.
At least Dr. Atkins kept updating his books and teachings as he learned more; were he alive today; I would expect another book to be in the works with the new things that he had learned. Too bad there aren't more like him. Sorry state of affairs when lay persons, like myself, have read more studies, added up the numbers, divided for the percentages-(many of the summaries are not supported by the numbers) than the doctors that want us to depend on them.
I got carried away. sorry.

Anyway, I'll post the study if I run across it again

[Cassinog]

Very interesting thread...

My only query to Gregory (once he's emerged out of his Margerita stupor) is exactly what reaction did he think he'd get posting essentially a big ol' advertising campaign for his rather pricey book on a Low Carb website?

I mean, we're all here because we're either trying out LC or (as many many of us have discovered) because we have determined that LC is the way forward for us.
I understand that he is not Anti-LC, but from some of his postings, he hasn't come across as being particularly tolerant of other people's beliefs, just that his is the only right way.. Which is fine... but why then post here?? :q:
- and if we shell out 65 dollars, count every calorie and work out like a machine we too can be buff as anything at the age of 55. Well, personally, I'd prefer to be happy with my slightly rounded body and a lot more relaxed about things at that age!

[westerner]

My only query to Gregory (once he's emerged out of his Margerita stupor) is exactly what reaction did he think he'd get posting essentially a big ol' advertising campaign for his rather pricey book on a Low Carb website?

I mean, we're all here because we're either trying out LC or (as many many of us have discovered) because we have determined that LC is the way forward for us.

I understand that he is not Anti-LC, but from some of his postings, he hasn't come across as being particularly tolerant of other people's beliefs, just that his is the only right way.. Which is fine... but why then post here??

I've just read through the first page or two of posts in this thread, and Gregory says that he was invited to post here.

Not everyone who posts in the Warzone forum is "trying out" LC. Some are here to knock LC, post alternative theories, or just to expand their minds.

Your point about Gregory being intolerant of others' beliefs is well taken. The same, however, could be said of many LC proponents, including certain posters on these boards. While some may argue that the major thrust of these boards is to provide support for LCers, I would point out that it has a side effect of surrounding oneself with only like minded individuals, filtering out contrary material, and engaging in group derision of alternative theories of nutrition, irrespective of their scientific merit. While mainstream nutritionists were guilty of this regarding Atkins/LC for many years, one should take care not to repeat the same mistake as they did.

[Cassinog]

Ya woulda thought that people who come onto these boards just to knock LC would have better things to do.. but I guess there are always some who enjoy that kind of thinking...

Makes for interesting reading at least! :lol:

[rpavich]

Uh...did someone forget to tell this guy that this is the wrong place to post an "Atkins was wrong" article? Uh...helloooo there are thousands here at this site alone who can prove you wrong pal just by virtue of sharing their story with you....go find some other board to haunt...we've got weight to lose here and don't need this "same old, same old" drivel....
bob

[kbfunTH]

You write as if I am opposed to the low-carbhydrate diet. I AM NOT.

I agree with you about the agriculterists. Why do you interpret me as if to say I suggest eating grains? I only state that calories control, not carbos. An earlier post argured that one ate more on low-carb and lost and ate less on low-fat and gained. This is in dispute with many scientific publications. Atkins misinterpreted and manipulated the "science" of his day to meet his needs. If you understood how to read these papers, you would see that. But you don't. Your "stories" are your biases.

Until, as I did, to remove any biases, you duplicate your foods that you eat and eat one part and burn the other in a bomb calorimeter, as I did, to determine the calorie content of what you are eating, then you have not controlled for your subjective biases. This is the failing of your "science." As a scientist, I am trying to tell you that, but you refuse to hear my message. To you, I am just another huckster salesperson. Wa'il wants to believe that the presentation of a study is proof of a position's validilty. It is not. Atkins brutally misinterpreted all of the studies he reviewed because he needed to to support his dogma. Their listing is no proof of his interpretation of the science.

You don't want to hear that. You want to say the sun will not rise tomorrow, you want to disavow Laws that are in operation. You cannot do this with your speculative ideas about what you eat and don't eat. You want to call me names. You want to kill the messenger. You want to deny the inviolate Laws of Nature; you want to construct your own Laws according to the fat man Atkins. If you opened your eyes, you would see that his diet did not work for him, he is a fat man. But why face reality because delusion is so much more comfortable. No one was more captive to this mythology than I was. I am only trying to help but all types of negative comments are made about me in respect to getting money from you or not representing science. Atkins brutalized science but none of you want to hear that because your Atkins religion pushes idolatry. Then you invoke my failure to provide science to help you decide if I add anything to the party.

Why would I? The science is my WORK PRODUCT. You say Atkins presents it but you never question any of it because you don't have the skills or the training. Tell me Wa'il, what's your PhD in? What training do you have to do the pros and cons in the scientific literature game?. None, I'm sure. Because it's published, you accept it. I challenge you to go get all of the papers published by Dr. Dale Schoeller and report back to your minions what you have found. Do you even know how to do a literature search? And, after that, do you know how to play pros and cons. I doubt it. You talk out the corner of your mouth reproducing quotes out of context (as you'll do to this piece), providing nothing of substance picking on me because I give no references (that you couldn't read) and supporting the fat old man because you are committed to that. Why question your beliefs?

I know that none of my dialogue will get me anywhere with you or the readers of this forum but with 3 margueritas under my belt, I really don't give a shit.

Will I change your mind? Not the slightest iota. I can't wait to read your response because it will confirm that you cannot be changed. Open-minded-ness and exploration of facts is not your MO. I've got to go mix another marguertita and put the lights on the tree. Wallow in your disbeliefs. I aint' fat, I'm a buffed racehorse lookin' good to the max. Other than Trainer Dan, no photos on this forum convince me that any of you has a clue. Please, spare me, don't argue, just blow me off as another buffoon. I don't need or want your money. Don't buy my book, please don't buy it. You don't need me and I don't need you. I've got abs while you're still tryin' to figure out how to get rid of your pot belly. I see your weights and goals listed. I ain't impressed with how fat so many of you are. But, hang in there with Atkins, the fat old boy will deliver you. You just don't need me. Hang with the fat boy.

By the way, when I was on his radio show in 1989, he took me to dinner, where I taught him all about the biochemistry of ketosis, and he ate the potato off my plate. Any of you ever have dinner with Atkins?

I enjoyed the heck out of reading this. Thanks for sharing. :)

PS - I've got the LITE version of UDS. Fantastic! I wished I would have bought the full version now. I'm sure I'm missing out on some great reading.

[Abd]

I continue to be amazed at how often "experts" mention the "laws of thermodynamics" while showing an utter ignorance about the real chemistry and physics involved. It is simply not true that "a calorie is a calorie," i.e., that 1 calorie of this will have the same effect on weight as 1 calorie of that. The reason is that the body is not a bomb calorimeter, it does not burn everything to ash. Humans don't digest cellulose at all, I understand. And if calories from foods that we *can* digest are trapped in our gut by fiber and fat and remain there until excreted, those to are not digested and thus do not contribute to weight. Dr. Ellis also repeatedly calls the Atkins diet a "failure." For example: "And the Atkins plan? Why does it fail so miserably? For the same reason that the low-fat diet fails. He
grants people a license to eat all the protein and fat
foods that they want as long as they restrict
carbohydrates. Will this work?"

Yes, it works, and here is why. The key word which Dr. Ellis and many Atkins critics overlook is "all ... that they want." The Atkins diet is appetite-suppressing, for two reasons. These reasons do not apply for all people, for not all people try to do Atkins in the same way. Essentially, fat is a crucial part of the Atkins diet, and it is possible that saturated fat is critical. Many, many people trying Atkins nevertheless try to restrict the butter and other so-called "bad" fats (which term should really be reserved for hydrogenated fats, probably). The two reasons are that fat is satisfying and that the allowed foods can be very pleasurable to eat.

So Atkins dieters, to some extent, reduce caloric intake. Sure, if a dieter ignores the signs of satisfaction and continues to eat, to stuff himself or herself, it's not going to work. But an Atkins dieter is less likely to do this.

In addition, it appears that fat calories are not as efficiently burned by the body as digestible carb calories. If both foods produced the same waste products, then efficiency would not be an issue. But I don't think they are the same. I'm *not* a nutritionist or expert on human metabolic processes, so I could be off here, but the very fact that ketones are normally excreted on a ketogenic diet indicates a wastage of calories. If you've got sugar in your urine you are a sick puppy!

"A calorie is a calorie" most seriously neglects the indigestibility of cellulosic fiber.

As to Dr. Ellis, I must say that the web site gives me a serious bad impression. This is not a simple effort to clear up confusion; rather, the web site is an extended sales pitch for a book with "Secrets" which are not revealed. You have to buy the book. There is no precis, no summary, only a few clues, really. It took me a few pages to get to some meat:

"Here it is: There's nothing in diets, dieting, weight loss, or weight control that's more important than the CALORIE — nothing!"

The Big Secret. And it is nonsense. In order to affect weight, the substance bearing the calories must be digested and must enter one of the metabolic cycles. If by "calorie" he means "effective, metabolized calorie," he would be almost right, except for the variations in ketone and glucose metabolism.

This is not a flame: Dr. Ellis is a salesman, using reprehensible marketing techniques.

I went on, through his verbose pages, full of hype, to see if I could find more meat. Here it is, his second Big Secret: Calories Do Count. "From this Law, I developed the Energy Balance Equation... balancing how many calories you eat against how many you burn."

The tipoff is "Calories you eat." If you count the calories you eat, you include all the indigestible carbs (and sugar alcohols and other non-utilized calories). Consider a train with a wood-fired steam engine. The energy output of the engine would seem to be controlled by how many calories are in the wood. But only if the wood is completely burned, and only if other inefficiencies in the system are not considered.

And then -- I'm now on the fifth page of his summary of his plan -- we come to the third Big Secret. Except that this one isn't even a coherent piece of positive information: The establishment is wrong and Atkins (he claims) is wrong. Gee, I better go on to the sixth page, maybe he reveals the true Secret there.

Ah! Here it is: "Don't you want to know once and for all the TRUTH? I am the TRUTH, your guide through the jungle. I am your "consumers' guide" to the TRUTH." Dr. Ellis himself is the Secret! We've been waiting for two thousand years! The time has come!

And the ultimate esoteric instruction is at the end of the 8th page, the summary of the plan in two words:

ORDER NOW

[Duparc]

Maybe this guy has something to say and I might have bought his book but his vanity and his desperate need to prove his worth discourages me. If his book has merit then undoubtedly the message will propagate when possibly I might purchase it.

Dr Ellis has now reached his mid 50s and the interesting feature to this stage of life is that on entry to this early old-age phase catabolism prevails and the next few years will prove the health benefits of his effort and belief. Admittedly, his current photographs are indeed impressive.

One is reminded of the late Dr Roy Walford, a passionate believer in diet and in calorie control, who failed miserably to reach his predicted 120 years, yet, he too, regularly undertook physical exercise. Walford was a fit man until he hit his middle 70s when aging caught-up with him and took him out prior to his 80th birthday.

Atkins too slipped on ice around his early 70s but would he have slipped had he been fitter or younger? While this is a hypothetical question that can only receive a hypothetical answer it is, however, an interesting consideration.

Jack Dreyfus, who wrote the book 'A Remarkable Medicine Has Been Overlooked' to my knowledge, is fit and well and in his 90s, and all that he seems to have done was to take the prescription pill Phenytoin. His book is interesting. See www.remarkablemedicine.com (http://www.remarkablemedicine.com/) . Supposing this little pill could extend life and maintain health, why then worry about dieting? Regretfully, what is needed is more research, but, who is about to finance it?

[AimeeJoi]

"One is reminded of the late Dr Roy Walford, a passionate believer in diet and in calorie control, who failed miserably to reach his predicted 120 years, yet, he too, regularly undertook physical exercise. Walford was a fit man until he hit his middle 70s when aging caught-up with him and took him out prior to his 80th birthday."

I am not sure this proves that his theories about calorie restriction were wrong or flawed. Roy Walford died from Lou Gehrig's disease, which is caused by a genetic defect, not by what a person eats. Usually LGD is diagnosed in middle age and patients die from it 3-5 years after diagnosis but Walford died at age 79, way past middle age. I would say that he lived longer than he might have otherwise lived (I am not necessarily saying his diet caused this but it might have slowed down his physiological aging) Calorie restriction prolonging maximum lifespan has many credible scientific studies backing it as a theory. Most diets don't have this kind of research backing it and are based on mostly correlative and testimonial evidence. Of course calorie restriction is not proven to work in humans but that is only because it is hard to do a 50-75 yr study, but that, i believe, is in the works as we speak.

:wave: Aimee

[Duparc]

I am certainly not in dispute with what you say AimeeJoi. I have had an interest in CR for a number of years and follow its progress, however, there was a time when CR appeared to have been hijacked by vegetarianism and Walford's tendency was to follow this path, although not entirely. I have often wondered whether his illness was advanced rather than retarded by the diet due to its large amount of carbohydrates but one is unlikely to discover this.

The point is, however, that Walford put his reputation 'on the line' when he entitled his book, 'The 120 Year Diet'. Something less pretentious would probably have been more appropriate. Presumably, like Dr Ellis, he too was keen to sell his book.

CR and LC dieting seem closely familiar and while CR has had the benefit of many years of research funding the beneficial results arising from recent research into LC dieting would appear to demand further attention.

[AimeeJoi]

i agree with you, duparc , about the whole CR thing leaning towards vegetarianism. I think a blending of CR and LC would probably have the best results overall. In fact I find when I eat the least carbs I also naturally eat fewer calories over the course of the day. bacon and eggs keep you fuller longer than cereal and soymilk and its amazing that when you figure out the calories they both have around the same amount. When i eat a high fat and low carb breakfast i usually dont feel like eating again until like 4 pm but with a high bulk/carb breakfast i seem to get hungry again around 11:30. You are definitely right that walford is all about high carb/grains and veggies. Grains however have a really high calorie count for what seems to me to be a low satiety level. :D -Aimee

[TBoneMitch]

You are right about Ellis having an attitude problem, but from having bought three of his books (Ultimate diet secrets, net carb scam, and there is no fountain of youth), I must concede that he definitely knows what he is talking about.

He is very pro low carb/high saturated fat, very scientific, but still readable, and does a great job tearing apart the vegetarians, nutritionists, etc.

But it is true that he would win himself many more supporters by being less aroogant.

[Duparc]

What I find interesting in this Thread is the argument surrounding thermodynamics.

There was a tv programme shown in the UK about 9 months ago on this very same argument by the leading authorities on nutrition but regret that I am unable to quote references.

The point that I found interesting was that calories in fat had to be burnt-off by the body and if it failed to burn those one became fatter, whereas, calories in protein didn't have this effect. Seemingly, piling-on the protein in the diet kept one slim which sounds contradictory to what I had been reading.

This was discovered from research, which, as I have said, I am unable to quote but I am certain that it was from research conducted in the UK lately. I have not heard anything further on those findings nor have I experimented to prove the point personally.

Thanks for the point mentioned TBoneMitch but I won't give Dr Ellis the satisfaction of thinking that I may have purchased his book!

[Pointcove]

Does anyone know? Of course it does not mean that much if it came from an accredited institution, since they are the worst offenders of not recognizing the benefits of low carbs, but it will indicate a level of knowledge. I have a gut feeling about his credentials. It will be interesting to see if he answers this.

[tamarian]

Here's an excellent explanation of how a "calorie is a calorie" theory does not follow the laws of thermodynamics in human biochemistry:

http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

Wa'il

[Abd]

"A calorie is a calorie," implying that the caloric content of one's diet is all that counts for weight maintenance, is mind-bogglingly off. The idea that, if we don't burn a calorie's worth of food, we will necessarily convert that food into fat, involves such a simple-minded concept of human metabolism, so easily controverted, that it is difficult for me to understand how so many educated and otherwise intelligent experts could subscribe to it. Olestra is not low-calorie, but eating it and not burning it as energy does not add weight, because it is excreted. Yes, there is indeed a law of conservation of mass; what you eat will either be excreted or will add weight. If it is burned, most foods will be excreted as carbon dioxide and water. If it is not burned, yes, it might be converted to fat and stored, but it might also simply be excreted directly, as ketones.

A calorie is a measure of the energy released when a substance is oxidized completely. The caloric content of foods is measured with a "bomb calorimeter," which simply burns the food. But the human body, as I mentioned is not a bomb calormeter. We don't burn foods literally; rather we digest them and break them down into various absorbable substances, which we can use in various ways. Starches are easily converted into glucose, the process starts even while the food is being mixed with saliva, which contains an enzyme pytalin that breaks starches down to produce glucose. And glucose is the basic fast fuel, and is also converted, when there is more than needed, into fat.

The article referenced so kindly by "tamarian" points out how the idea that different foods of the same caloric content will be of equal effect on weight -- i.e., on fat stored -- would actually be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics if it were true. I'm not sure that is *exactly* correct, i.e., it is possible that two different foods could have the same weight gain/loss effect if they are of the same caloric content, but it would be a remarkable coincidence. The article gives the analogy of high-test gasoline: the caloric content of raw gasoline without antiknock compounds is almost exactly the same as that of treated gasoline, but the energy output of an engine will be different with the two gasolines. The antiknock compounds make the engine run more efficiently, so that more work is done with the high-test fuel. Both fuels will ultimately release the same amount of energy, if completely burned, but one fuel may generate more waste heat and thus less work, plus one fuel may be less completely burned because of the way that it functions in the engine. The human body is not different. We do not necessarily burn fuels completely; and what happens to the energy generated when we do burn the fuel can vary with the kind of fuel and with how our body metabolises it.

Ellis has the idea, apparently, that if we don't burn a calorie's worth of food that we have eaten, with exercise or other activity, the food must necessarily end up as weight. But there are other things that can be done with that food. It might simply be excreted, either immediately, i.e., it is never absorbed into the bloodstream, or later, through another eliminative mechanism. It would be interesting to list the ways in which the body can dump matter *after* digestion.

I read far too much of Dr. Ellis' material on his web site. The pages are dense with exclamations about how nobody but he understands nutrition, with hype about his program, but he actually says very, very little of substance. If he is truly knowledgeable, it doesn't show from what he has written. And what he does say that is actually substantial, i.e., a calorie is a calorie, is spectacularly wrong as applied to human nutrition.

[eve25]

man, i wish this guy would come back (even though we're too FAT for him)!!!!

[emmy207]

removed see post below.

[emmy207]

I see people on birth control and anti-depressants who suddenly start gaining weight like crazy. I see chronic yo-yo dieters, over-eaters, bulimics and anorexics who are trying to get their bodies back to normal. Calories and thermodynamics theory is nice until you throw one of the above monkey wrenches into the picture.

I dunno... perhaps I haven't explained my point too well here, but if there was a birth control pill for men, or male hormonal cycles, Dr Ellis would know what I mean. :D I, too, used to have a strictly-calorties mindset until I went on, then off, the pill; then later on, then off, depo-provera. *shrug*



Personally, I am taking birth control, so I don't gain weight by getting pregnant!!! Yes it my have helped me gain weight and made my skin break out but, I am getting regular exercise because I am on The Pill ;) :p
And yes their are people that have had nightmares in dieting and over-eating but changing their whole out look on food has changed many of us. Low Carb is away of attacking our demons of sugary, heavy carb eatting habits with little nutritional valve, to a diet that is healthy with leafy greens and berries, good meat, cheese and nuts, therefore has an abundunce of vitamins and minerals. Even if the weight loss is slow and stalls it is worth making the change to feel healthier and free of sugar and junk food, that is the point of Atkins it is a healthy eating plan that is designed to change our approach to food.
Dr Ellis seems to an obsessive, who operates like a religous evangelist, so that we will see the light and convert to the only diet that can work - his.

[rbednarski]

Just read the whole thread and there was one thing that just struck me as hilarious. How can someone who writes:

"I have written 600 pages of SOLUTIONS. Why me? I got
fat, really fat, at age 12. I spent the next 43 years
of my life researching every aspect of how the body,
itself, regulates its weight. And do you know what I
discovered? Everything. I learned it all." (emphasis added)

complain and get all offended because someone called him a "know-it-all".

Maybe it is just me but this struck me as incredibly funny.

Rich