Can anyone deny this is a calorie reduction diet?

[fodus8]

Atkins and all the low-carb diets are simply low calorie diets. It is absolutely fact that the Atkins diet reduces one's appetite. How difficult is it to see that when we eat less we lose weight? Carbs and fruit are not the enemy, reduced activity and excess calories are the problems in America today. More to come.

[lkonzelman]

I had to raise my calories to 2400 to start losing again.

On low fat... I would have gained. So your theory doesn't work with low carbing.

Sorry...

[cartmanis]

I think you answered your own statement.

LC does reduce your appetite, as you say. You can fill up on lC foods, and have a modest calorie intake.

The problem is, when you fill up on a similar calorie, Carb heavy foods, I, like many if not all here, end up feeling like they are starving, thus they eat more, more calories, more hunger....

Sorry, your nicely reworded, but standard statment that people are obese because they are lazy and gorge themselves doesn't tell the whole picture. Do a root cause analysis of why, then come back and ask some questions.

[wcollier]

Originally posted by fodus8
How difficult is it to see that when we eat less we lose weight? Carbs and fruit are not the enemy, reduced activity and excess calories are the problems in America today.

Well of course! Nothing of this is much of a surprise. Atkins also cautions about consuming too many calories. Some people get more of a metabolic advantage and can consume more calories than others. I think it's a YMMV thing.

Re: "excess calories". You miss the big picture. The big picture is that unstable blood sugars cause overeating. It's not the other way around.

"Carbs and fruit are not the enemy". Change those words to "unprocessed, high-fiber carbs and fruit" and I'd say, "no argument there". Many can do this and lose significant amounts of weight. Furthermore, everyone maintains weight on these foods. The enemy is the white, processed carbs. Would anyone argue that as untrue? Except for the USDA, of course. ;)

Be careful about making generalizations, including generalizations about LC. There are lots of LC plans out there, some using higher carbs than others. Also, not everyone is the same. Lots of people with stable blood sugars can lose weight just by eating low fat or restricting calories or simply exercising. But if blood sugars are the problem, LC is the answer.

Wanda

[Lisa N]

You might find this study interesting.

Reference:
Kasper, H., Thiel, H., Ehl, M., "Response of Body Weight to a Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet in Normal and Obese Subjects," The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 26, 1973, pages 197-204.

Summary:
The object of this study was to analyze the relationship between carbohydrate and fat as it pertains to regulation of body weight. Five volunteers were fed a formula diet comprised of 168 grams of carbohydrate, 64 grams of protein and 39 grams of fat for 45 days. Every five days, the amount of fat in the diet was increased via ingestion of either corn oil or olive oil. Researchers noted that the body could use up to 600 grams of fat daily, and this utilization was not compromised in any form, meaning individuals experienced increases in thermogenisis. At daily intakes of 300 to 400 grams of fat, subjects reported feeling warm all over and had an increased tendency to sweat. The individuals consuming the olive oil experienced an average weight gain of 20 pounds. Individuals consuming corn oil, although ingesting approximately 6,000 calories per day, experienced a decrease in weight. Researchers postulated that this discrepancy was due to the corn oil containing more of a particular essential fatty acid (linoleic acid). Based on the results obtained from this pilot study, the researchers placed 25 obese subjects on one of five diets varying in caloric value and ranging from low-fat/high-carbohydrate to high-fat/low-carbohydrate. All diets were supplemented with either corn oil or olive oil. Individuals consuming a low-fat, 855-calorie diet lost an average of 1.1 pounds daily while individuals consuming a low-fat, 1,006-calorie diet lost an average of 0.57 pounds daily. By comparison, the low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet group eating 1,707 calories lost 0.66 pounds daily while those eating 2,150 calories lost 0.70 pounds daily, regardless of whether they ate corn oil or olive oil. Eating less did not significantly alter weight loss in the low-carbohydrate groups. Researchers believed that this was a result of an increased energy output in the higher calorie group released by the body in the form of heat. Researchers also concluded that the weight loss was not water loss due to the length of the study and the total amount of weight loss achieved.

You might wish to note that those who were eating low carb consumed 700-1100 more calories than the low fat group and still lost more weight.

This one too: Please note that those that ate the most calories also lost the most weight by a good amount.

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.

I'm not arguing that you don't have to restrict calories to lose weight, but if I had a choice between restricting them to 1,800 calories a day and losing weight or restricting them to 1,100 calories to lose weight (and lowering my metabolism in the process), it's not a difficult choice to make now is it?

[Teuthis]

Any diet, in order to be effective, must in actuality, reduce caloric intake. Atkins does it in a smooth and less painful way, but his book is replete with statements about eating less and reducing food volume as you progress. He does maintain, and it seems true, that his plan provides a caloric advantage over the high carb/low fat diets. But to lose weight one must fall consistently below that "advantage" in caloric volume, to lose weight. He makes it quite clear on page 143 of the 2002 edition.

But that does not negate the excellent results obtainable with Atkins as long as one does not come away from reading the book with the misconception that there are no caloric limits to the diet. There are definitely limits. Atkins states that one can BEGIN to lose weight on as many as 2000 calories daily. But he also implies in various places that we must diminish our food volume. The caloric advantage of Atkins provides some extension of caloric intake but it does not negate it. The diet is actually a clever and effective way to reduce ones food/caloric volumes as the plan progresses. I enjoy it thoroughly.

[Quinadal]

Well, it IS a reduced calorie diet! I mean, I USED to eat over 6000 :eek: calories a day on a low fat diet, because I was always starving! Now I eat 2500-3000, a reduced calorie total, and I'm healthier and losing fat! :daze:

[commorancy]

By simply eliminating or reducing consumption of refined flours, starches, sugars and grains, one will reduce calories automatically. By increasing intake of protein and fat, the body will feel full much faster and stay that way for much longer. So, you end up eating far less than when eating high carb foods. A LC meal is very satisfying. So much so that I don't even think about food if I happen to be busy. HC meals tend to be full of empty calories that, while satisfying for a few minutes, leads to hunger within a short period. Rice is a good example.

Further, it takes far more processing by the colon to digest protein than carbs or fat. Therefore, by eating lean proteins you are, in fact, enhancing your fat burning process even further. It simply takes more calories to digest protein than it does fat or carbs.

For this fact alone you can eat more calories in protein than you can carbs. The protein isn't stored as fat (except under extreme conditions).

That doesn't mean you would eat more calories than a 'normal' diet (which I use loosely). And yes, you are still eating lower volumes of food and lower calories.
I personally don't count calories. I eat enough until I'm just barely full. Which takes a lot less than it did with a HC diet.

As far as carbs and fruit 'being the enemy', they aren't an enemy. They are just way overused in commercial foods. You pick up any food on any store shelf and you count the carbs on the package. I don't mean look at the nutrition label either. I mean, actually read the ingredients and decipher what is a carb and what isn't. You'll find the descrepancy between the nutrition label and the real ingredients to be 'the enemy'.

Since you can't trust labeling, you have to take control of the carbs yourself. THIS is why Atkins (and other low carb plans exist). To allow us to control our own carb intake based on intelligent food choices. Not by starving and being miserable all the time trying to 'work' the 'normal' HC diet based on false labels and bad advice.

Take care.

[vmaxjohn]

A calorie is the measurment of how many BTU's an item can produce when heated to it's combustable point. Caloric studies came along when doctors thought our bodies worked like furnaces. Of course, this is complete bunk. It is my opinion that worrying about calories now, is more bunk.

Cardboard has tons of calories in it, but if that is your diet, skip the t, you'll just die. You'd take in thousands upon thousands of calories, and with nothing but malnutrition to show for it.

It's very easy to dismiss the benefits of low carb eating, until you feel the advantages for yourself. Open your mind.

[PoofieD]

My thought is so what it reduces my calories??
I am not uncomfortable. I don't starve. I am not sitting there only thinking about the chocolate and cake I can't have even when on a low fat/high carb diet.
On the low fat/high carb thing..they are all I can think about.
On this... eh??
Nedra

[Lisa N]

I agree with Poofie. So what? I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that low carbing doesn't reduce your caloric intake, but the beauty of it is that you can actually eat more on low carb than you can on low fat and still lose more weight (see the studies above). It also keeps your blood sugar much more stable and your insulin production in check so you aren't having wild blood sugar swings that only serve to make you hungrier.
Keeping your insulin prouduction low also prevents your body from wanting to store everything you eat as fat even if you are practically starving yourself. Lots of insulin in the bloodstream tells your body "there's an excess..store it for later" even if the calories coming in are deficient.
My DH was really amazed when he started low carbing that he could actually lose weight and not be hungry all the time. Every other diet he had tried left him feeling hungry and thinking about when the next meal was coming.

[gkeenan]

Yes, low carbing reduces your caloric intake...but that is a plus according to your original statement...if we all over eat and are lazy, you must agree that lowcarbing is the answer, we eat less and feel full...which spurs many who never exercised at all to get excited about weight loss and get out and move...so what's the point?

Gail

[tigersue]

I can say that when I was following WW many years ago when it was just starting low protien, low fat, but was still somewhat lowercarb too, the only vitamins that I had enough of in any way shape or form was Vit A, because I ate lots of veggies, and Vitamin C. I didn't get enough of anything else because of so many being fat soluble, and found in red meats which were limited. Is that a way to live, I don't think so. I know my intake because of taking a nutrition class I had to do dietary analysis on what I was eating. Now I get enough of the essential's to live. One other Low Fat high carb plan I followed, stressed the need to eat over 2000 calories a day or the body goes into starvation mode. I gained weight everytime I tried a low calorie plan. Do you know how many patients gain weight when they are only getting nutrition from IV's. They are mostly sugar, even when other nutrients are added. They gain weight with ensure, which again is not in balance as much as they would like to say it is. If low calorie is to loose weight they would because trust me, they barely get minimal calories by these methods. Eventually, they might loose, but by then they are wasting away, using up all the building blocks in the body. For me this WOE, is not about calorie intake, but about healing my body. It takes time, I'm a slow loser, but I would rather lose slow, and do what I need to maintain and regain my health, I was getting sicker and sicker everyday, I was afraid I was turning into my mother in law that has so many problems that I needed to be proactive in stopping the degeneration of my health. I very much doubt I am cutting calories. I eat when I'm hungry, I work out hard, and beyond than I really don't care what my intake happens to be that day.
tanya

[lpioch]

When I was just LCing (the first 8 or 9 pounds), I was hitting around 1800 to 2000 calories a day.

Now I'm LCing and weight training heavily. Pounds are not moving, but inches are still shrinking (i.e...I'm gaining lean mass while still shedding fat at the same time). Now I average about 2300 calories a day, forcing myself to eat 6 times a day.

On low fat, I had to drop to 1000 calories a day to lose at this same rate.

So, yes. I can deny that it is a calorie reduction diet.
EASILY.

-- Loretta

[orzabelle]

I absolutely think this is a low-calorie diet - at least for me. I think a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, and am only able to lose weight by taking in under 1500 calories. (Even with regular exercise) The key is, I CAN eat 1500 or so calories and not grip my head all day, thinking about food.

I did Zone years ago, and lost 35lbs forever. At that higher weight, I was able to lose it all by eating about 1800 low-carb calories a day. If only 1800 was still my weight loss number! But once I hit my goal weight - which will no doubt take a few more months (I lose fat at snail speed) - I will probably stick around the 1800 mark as my maintenance area. (Unless of course, I start running ten marathons a year! Not!)

[gary]

To: Fodus8

If you read many posts on this board one can see there are varying results for everybody with some needing more calories to lose and some less. I definitely cut my calories and had success.

The one point that is missed is that let us examine exactly what carbs we eat. Should we not all try to reduce the junk carbs - pure sugar, refined white flour - that science is soundly behind that we should reduce? One reason is to lessen the chance of getting type II diabetes. For myself - I used to get drowsy after lunch - this went away when I dropped all my junk carbs. I do believe that I have reduced this Type II risk. Another reason to eliminate junk carbs would be to reduce triglyceride levels.

So when you say carbs are not the problem you demonstrate that you are absolutely clueless about differences in carbs and have not read the Atkins book. I would recommend that you read the book cover to cover and concentrate on the word vegetables. Just trying to help you so you don't appear to be such a fool! We do eat carbs on the Atkins diet! If you study the low-fat diet - they too say to cut junk carbs! :daze:

[cc48510]

Body fat and Triglycerides can only be created and stored when Insulin is released...Insulin is only released when you eat carbs or certain Artificial Sweeteners (Aspartame). Insulin is esentially the door to your fat cells and carbs are the key to that door. No key, no entry.

But, calories do matter for weight loss...because your body will burn something like 50% of the fat and 58% of the protein you eat. So, if you eat so much that your body is always burning dietary fat and protein...then, you will not lose weight.

Protein can be turned into carbs (albeit inefficiently) according to DANDR. So, to much protein can in fact cause stalling and weight gain. This is why Atkins is not a Hi-Protein diet.

Here are some theories, but don't try them:

1) Soluble Carbs produce no waste. They are either used or stored...so, the only way to lose and eat hi-carb is to eat less than you burn through exercise and metabolism. One sure sign that your carbs may be too high is if you are going to the bathroom once a week (as I was before Atkins).

2) A diet of 100% fat would never* cause weight gain no matter how much you ate. It would not guarantee weight loss, though. Dietary fat can be used for fuel...but excess cannot be stored unless insulin is present.

*Certain artificial sweeteners even though they contain no carbs or protein...will cause the release of insulin and therefore can cause weight gain on a 100% fat diet.

3) A diet of 100% protein is probably unsafe...You could consume more calories than a 100% carb diet, but less than a 100% fat diet due to the ineffiency of turning protein to carbs.

4) When you combine all 3 (Fat, Protein, and Carbs) in the correct proportions, you can lose weight eating 2-3K calories a day as I have. But, when you eat them out-of-proportion (HC/LF) you can consume 1.0-1.5K calories and lose much slower than if you were twice as many calories, but in the right proportions.

5) Carbs stimulate appetite, induce cravings, and are quickly absorbed leaving you hungry. So, not eating them definitely reduces appetite. I eat about half of what I ate before Atkins: 4-6K calories. But, I have lost four times faster than I did eating 1.0-1.5K calories because I am consuming fat, protein and carbs in the right proportions.

[commorancy]

> 3) A diet of 100% protein is probably unsafe...You could consume more calories than a 100% carb diet, but less than a 100% fat diet due to the ineffiency of turning protein to carbs.

It's also not really possible. Most sources of protein are wrapped in fat, both fat and carbs or roughage. Therefore, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to eat a 100% protein only diet. You would have to eat some lab created/extracted protein to eat a 100% protein diet. However, when eating whole real foods it is impossible to eat 100% protein.

As far as calories go, this entire way of determining energy used vs consumed is entirely stupid. A calorie is how much food it takes to raise the temperature of water 1 degree when burned in a petrie dish. Comparing this test to the way the human body functions, there is no comparison. The body simply does not light food on fire. It uses chemical processes to dissect and reassemble molecules. These processes do give off heat as a result, but without fire. Therefore, this calorie test is only a simulation (and not a very good one).

Worse, because of the inexactness of actually performing this test on a piece of food, coupled with the fact that this cannot be done at home and that everyone's metabolism is slightly different, calories are wholly inadequate units of measurement.

Worse, consider that manufacturers probably do not actually burn any foods to determine calories. Instead, they likely apply a formula based on ingredients in their products and extrapolate the 'calories' in a given product.

A gram, on the other hand, is a unit of weight. Because the manufacturers weigh their foods (for portion control and food cost reasons), these measurements are likely to be far more accurate than calories. Therefore, counting calories is inadequate and will likely not work well. Counting grams, on the other hand, is far easier because people can actually buy scales and weigh the food.

How much food to eat is all dependant on body makeup, level of activity and the types of food eaten. However, one thing is very clear, carbs are the key to weight loss. How many carbs needed is up to each person to determine. But, it's very clear that the American diet has skewed carbs and fat way out of proportion. The body needs fat, protein and carbs in sensible amounts. Skewing any one of these out of proportion forces the body to take measures to protect itself.

With the current HC/LF diet, the body clearly thinks that it is starving and stores the fat. The body only stores fat when it thinks it is not getting enough food or the right types. Clearly, the HC/LF diet is wrong.

[Lisa N]

Well done, Commorancy! You make a lot of very valid points. :D

The 100% protein (in liquid form) was tried back in the early 70's. Deaths resulted because it was very low calorie, poor quality protein and completely lacking in essential fatty acids.

[cc48510]

Commocrancy, I believe calories are actually determined using the 9-4-4 formula. That is (Fat x 9) + ((Carbs - Fiber) x 4) + (Protein x 4). This is definitely more accurate than burning them since it is to some degree based on their weight. But, it is still not entirely accurate as it assumes that your body burns everything you eat.

The 9-4-4 formula is therefore inherently flawed. But, it is usefull for those on Low-calorie/Low-fat/Hi-Carb diets...because that is how your body functions when you feed it lots of carbs, but starve it of fat and protein. When you eat in the proper proportions, your body does not function that way...and therefore, 9-4-4 fails in such cases. 9-4-4 works only when you eat LF/Low-Calorie/HC. It doesn't work otherwise.

[commorancy]

>Commocrancy, I believe calories are actually determined using the 9-4-4 formula. That is (Fat x 9) + ((Carbs - Fiber) x 4) + (Protein x 4).... The 9-4-4 formula is therefore inherently flawed. But, it is usefull for those on Low-calorie/Low-fat/Hi-Carb diets...because that is how your body functions when you feed it lots of carbs, but starve it of fat and protein.

This question begs asking. If the food manufacturers know that the recommended diet is HC/LF, do they then apply the 9-4-4 formula to their foods in order to determine calories? If, as you mention, it is only applicable to a HC/LF/LoCal diet, then calories on packages are even more screwed up than I thought.

Otherwise, they must light foods on fire or, alternatively, make a formula based on ingredients that have already been tested. Or, as you mention above, apply the 9-4-4 formula.

The 9-4-4 formula also isn't much good if it only applies to a specific way of eating. Calories are supposed to be a general purpose measurement that apply no matter what type of diet you are on or the types of food you are eating. If the 9-4-4 calorie formula only applies in a specific case, then in all other cases those calories are not applicable and make no sense.

This further emphasizes the need for food weight rather than calories. Weight and volume are the only true accurate measurements that you have in a kitchen. Weight and volume also apply to any diet or any WOE. Calories are a nice idea, but you can't really measure them in practice and may not apply to every WOE (as you mention).

In other words, I only trust what I can measure. If I can't measure it, how do I know that it's accurate? The answer: there is no way to know if it's accurate without actually performing the calorie test. Even a mathematical formula is based on someone's idea of what a calorie is. That formula has to be proven to be based in reality. So far, I don't have a shred of evidence that the 9-4-4 formula defines a calorie in reality.

[commorancy]

>Well done, Commorancy! You make a lot of very valid points.

Thank you. :)

>The 100% protein (in liquid form) was tried back in the early 70's. Deaths resulted because it was very low calorie, poor quality protein and completely lacking in essential fatty acids.

Yes, I remember hearing about this diet. The reason I'd heard that deaths resulted was due to the lack of fatty acids. The heart and the brain need fats in order to properly function. Without adequate intake of fats (and carbs), they simply cease to function. So, apparently there were many of those dieters who died from heart attacks.

[Lisa N]

cc45810...

The definition of a calorie as it is used in food is the kilocalorie (or large calorie). What is a kilocalorie? The amount of energy required to raise 1000 grams (1 kilogram) of water 1 degree Celsius which is equal to 3.968 BTU. The only way to practically determine how much energy a particular food gives off is to literally burn it under a beaker of water and measure how much the temperature of the water goes up. This works wonderful in a lab where the conditions can be carefully controlled and you can ensure that the product is completely consumed (burned), but that's not how our bodies work. Calories are useful as a reference point in that we can determine the average amount of calories needed to maintain, lose or gain weight, but when it comes to bodies, they are not an exact measurement as they are in a lab.

Commorancy...those that died from heart failure may have suffered heart attacks (a blockage of an artery supplying blood to the heart), but most likey it was cardiac arrest (where the heart simply stops beating for a variety of reasons). Many people confuse the two and use them interchangably.

[commorancy]

> Commorancy...those that died from heart failure may have suffered heart attacks (a blockage of an artery supplying blood to the heart), but most likey it was cardiac arrest (where the heart simply stops beating for a variety of reasons). Many people confuse the two and use them interchangably.

Actually, I was always under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that a 'heart attack' was a general term for whenever the heart has a life threatening problem (either stops beating entirely or is blocked by foreign matter or other immediate conditions). The medical terminology, on the other hand, would be myocardial-infarction which describes the condition exactly. Heart attack, on the other hand, is a general term coined by lay-people to be used generally. Yes, 'Heart Attack' may be applied traditionally to perhaps myocardial infarction, but it is rarely used by medical personnel to describe the condition simply because of confusion.

As with 'kleenex' being used to describe a tissue, so 'heart attack' is used to describe life threatening heart conditions. But, yes, there are other more specific medical terms that can be used to describe exact conditions.

Since I had no way to know which exact heart condition may have applied, I used 'heart attack' generally.

[Lisa N]

My bad. :D

I should have specified that the general public uses the term "heart attack" when referring to an actual MI (how many news agencies reported that Dr. Atkins suffered a "heart attack" implying that it was dietary related?) when actually he suffered a cardiac arrest for a very different reason and the Atkins Center was very quick to point out the difference when the event occurred because of the common usage of the term "heart attack". I've even heard medical professionals use the term heart attack when referring to an MI.
I can see that you know the difference...good for you! :)

[DebPenny]

Just to throw one more point into the mix: 9-4-4 are only approximations. One gram of fat has approximately 9 calories. I don't know what the true fractions are, but even the USDA nutrition database used the 9-4-4 and states that they are just approximations.

So whenever you make those calculations, there is a margin of error.

I'm with Commorancy, I'd rather just measure my grams of fat, protein, and carbs and forget about the calorie content. ;)

;-Deb

[commorancy]

>I'm with Commorancy, I'd rather just measure my grams of fat, protein, and carbs and forget about the calorie content.

Especially since it's so much easier to weigh ingredients rather than burn them. And much less destructive and wasteful. ;)

[Froggirl]

I am sure I am in for it with this statement... I eat TWICE as many calories LC and am loosing weight...Period! I do not care about studies, what my co workers think, or even the flippin WHO. It works!!! Maybe not for everyone..Alot of factors come into play.

Not everyone who is "fat" is a food binging couch potatoe. My Dr. says I am doing the right thing, he is probably not in the majority. If it works for you GREAT! If you have a huge angered problem about it...Probably because you do not have the will to follow the plan.

YES if you are going to eat 5 pds of highly fatty meat a day and a can of nuts.. Not gonna help. If you have a weight problem that connects to over eating ONLY. Lowering your intake will probably help.

I was eating 800 calories a day(TRUE) and gaining weight. The LC lifestyle truely helps us with glucose issues, as well as ppl who eat processed foods as the staple of thier diet. It is about being smart and doing what is right for your body. If it is not for you...Good Luck in your quest.

[orzabelle]

Hey Froggirl,

You're not in for it! Everyone is different!

I've tried it all...

Low-cal/low-fat doesn't work for me, while high-cal/low-carb doesn't either. But low-cal/low-carb is the only thing that does work for me!

I exercise like crazy, and must just not have the best metabolism, because if I ate all the calories I wanted, or even near 2000 a day, I wouldn't be able to button my pants. :(

I am confused about why Atkins and other low-carb plans work, honestly. Studies have shown that low-carb works, but I'm not positive that the 'why' has been proven. For me, low-carb allows me to eat fewer calories without salivating at the thought of food all day. I still sort of believe that a calorie is a calorie, and that more of them have to be expended than taken in in order to lose fat. My only laboratory is my own body!

[redawn]

you eat less calories BECAUSE you are staying away from the sugar/starch which causes many people to spike and then hunger. . .we are weaning ourselves off of the manufacturing tit! If it has hit the factory, it is no longer of use to me. But Nabisco and Kelloggs would not be happy with that concept. How can you say they are they same? Low fat and low carbs. . .aren't even in the same room. redawn:)

[redawn]

Originally posted by gary
To: Fodus8

For myself - I used to get drowsy after lunch - this went away when I dropped all my junk carbs. I do believe that I have reduced this Type II risk. Another reason to eliminate junk carbs would be to reduce triglyceride levels.



Me too! I could easily take a 3 hr nap after lunch. . .could not keep my eyes open! And after I read it in the Atkins book I was "OHHH!" redawn:)

[orzabelle]

Who said they were the same?

[Froggirl]

"Take a typical person...then take a gerbil...Christa your metabolism is the gerbil." an actual quote from a MD!!!! hahahahahahahahahah

I find most of my problems do stem from blood glucose. I started testing and re testing...wrote down EVERY bit that entered my body. This is my proof that a low carb....meat followed by whole foods only works!(I called it the froggirl hodgepodge of hope to those who doubted my science) HAHAHA

Everyone is diffrent...Yet I have never met a person who cut down on processed carbs that did not loose a few pds...

[commorancy]

>Everyone is diffrent...Yet I have never met a person who cut down on processed carbs that did not loose a few pds...

Actually, I would say that processed and refined food should actually be labeled as a drug. Why? Because, a refined or processed food has been refined to remove all traces of nutrition leaving behind basically only one substance to act on the body. For example, sugar or flour. Both of these are refined to remove all traces of the whole foods they came from leaving only the sweet (or starch) which is empty and devoid of any real nutritional value. Sure, it offers a carb, but you can get carbs from any whole real food.

Processed foods are very similar. They are processed to remove almost all real nutritional value leaving behind only those things which can act aggresively and quickly once in the body.

Only drugs offer this similar benefit. Speeding themselves to the parts of the body they affect without much digestion. Except refined sugar and flour and processed foods go directly to the hips, thighs and stomach instead of giving a high (well, they do give an insulin high). Worse, they offer no clear benefit for the body other than tricking it into thinking it's a nutritional food and then realizing it isn't (when you're hungry again in 1 hour).

These types of foods should be labeled as a drug, not a food.

[skibunnie]

This is deffinatly NOT a calorie reducing diet. Ive tried eating 600 a day, 800, 1000, 1200 calories a day on low fat, healthy diets. I lost nothing ! I eat anywhere from 1200 - 1500 calories a day and the weight is coming off really fast. I do think that you do need to reduce your calories a little, you cant eat as much low carb food as you want, even dr atkins has said that.

[ItsTheWooo]

Atkins and all the low-carb diets are simply low calorie diets. It is absolutely fact that the Atkins diet reduces one's appetite. How difficult is it to see that when we eat less we lose weight? Carbs and fruit are not the enemy, reduced activity and excess calories are the problems in America today. More to come.
It is true atkins does limit calorie intake. Low carb eating levels your blood sugar, preventing one from becoming hypoglycemic, and therefore entering a meal ravenous which of course leads to binge eating.... BUT atkins is not a low cal diet.

Low cal diets are about deprivation. You are hungry on a high carb, low fat calorie restricted diet. Low cal diets are unnatural. Painfully starving yourself is psychologically damaging, and inevitably leads to failure of the diet (98% of all people fail diets). This is why so many who yo-yo dieted for years with low cal low fat high carb find success with atkins.

Another thing to keep in mind, it's not just the limiting of calories which makes atkins work. High levels of insulin make one more prone to store food (fat especially) as fat stores on your body. Atkins lowers and stabilizes insulin production, making you less hungry and primes your body for fat burning rather than fat STORING, which is the real reason it works so well. It has been proven in studies that the atkins control group results in more fat weight loss, even when eating 50% more than the low fat/cal control group. How do you explain that?

Atkins is just a healthy, natural way to eat. Lots of water, leafy greens, natural oils and fats, and protein. This is what our bodies are designed to eat. Atkins works because its how we are meant to get energy; you eat a lot of unprocessed, whole, healthy foods rather than the frozen, prepackaged, type 2 diabetes causing refined high glycemic garbage that is recommended on "healthy low fat/cal" diets.

[jaykay]

Lol. I eat 2000 calories on Atkins and lose weight.
Its true that if I eat over 3000 I don't - but then I didn't ever get near to even 2000, pre-Atkins.

This is for a reasonably active 5'6" 30 yr old woman - 2000 calories is on the high side for maintenance, let alone weight loss.

[ItsTheWooo]

You might find this study interesting.

Reference:
Kasper, H., Thiel, H., Ehl, M., "Response of Body Weight to a Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet in Normal and Obese Subjects," The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 26, 1973, pages 197-204.

Summary:
The object of this study was to analyze the relationship between carbohydrate and fat as it pertains to regulation of body weight. Five volunteers were fed a formula diet comprised of 168 grams of carbohydrate, 64 grams of protein and 39 grams of fat for 45 days. Every five days, the amount of fat in the diet was increased via ingestion of either corn oil or olive oil. Researchers noted that the body could use up to 600 grams of fat daily, and this utilization was not compromised in any form, meaning individuals experienced increases in thermogenisis. At daily intakes of 300 to 400 grams of fat, subjects reported feeling warm all over and had an increased tendency to sweat. The individuals consuming the olive oil experienced an average weight gain of 20 pounds. Individuals consuming corn oil, although ingesting approximately 6,000 calories per day, experienced a decrease in weight. Researchers postulated that this discrepancy was due to the corn oil containing more of a particular essential fatty acid (linoleic acid). Based on the results obtained from this pilot study, the researchers placed 25 obese subjects on one of five diets varying in caloric value and ranging from low-fat/high-carbohydrate to high-fat/low-carbohydrate. All diets were supplemented with either corn oil or olive oil. Individuals consuming a low-fat, 855-calorie diet lost an average of 1.1 pounds daily while individuals consuming a low-fat, 1,006-calorie diet lost an average of 0.57 pounds daily. By comparison, the low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet group eating 1,707 calories lost 0.66 pounds daily while those eating 2,150 calories lost 0.70 pounds daily, regardless of whether they ate corn oil or olive oil. Eating less did not significantly alter weight loss in the low-carbohydrate groups. Researchers believed that this was a result of an increased energy output in the higher calorie group released by the body in the form of heat. Researchers also concluded that the weight loss was not water loss due to the length of the study and the total amount of weight loss achieved.

You might wish to note that those who were eating low carb consumed 700-1100 more calories than the low fat group and still lost more weight.

This one too: Please note that those that ate the most calories also lost the most weight by a good amount.

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.

I'm not arguing that you don't have to restrict calories to lose weight, but if I had a choice between restricting them to 1,800 calories a day and losing weight or restricting them to 1,100 calories to lose weight (and lowering my metabolism in the process), it's not a difficult choice to make now is it?

One question, did they measure how much of the weight loss was in the form of water, fat, muscle and other? This is a very important distinction.

Carbs have a ton of water, and low carb dieting in the early stages causes a lot of water loss, which is why in the first few weeks the weight seems to just fly off. Sure some of it is fat, and you probably will lose more fat than hc dieters, but a lot of it is also water. In this particular study, the low carb dieters probably had a higher percentage of water loss, and the high carb dieters who ate very little probably lost more true fat than the low carb dieters who ate over 2000 calories in study #1.

Now, I don't doubt you can eat more calories (in the form of fat) on a low carb plan, and still lose similar amounts of weight as those who eat less calories on a high carb plan. Its no mystery really, its thermogenesis. Running on a fat burning metabolism is like doing exercise all day long. Fat requires more energy to burn than carbohydrate, therefore you must eat more calories if your primary energy intake is from lipids. To maintain the same level of bodily function as a high carb dieter you must eat more calories :D.
Even though im aware eating fat while eating low carb allows you to eat more, I just dont believe the average person can eat 1000 calories more :lol:!

How much more you can eat may very well be a personal thing, just like how many carbs your body can handle, how insulin resistant you are prone to become/are, etc. Personally, i only started losing when i slightly lowered my caloric intake to around 1500 (im not very active). However, i rarely, every feel hungry eating this way, and sometimes i even have to force myself to eat (to avoid low blood sugar).

[steveed]

...but then, that isn't the point!

The point is, I eat less calories and MY CRAVINGS ARE GONE!!!

If I went on any other calorie reduction WOE, I would be ravenously hungry all the time and in the end this feeling of being denied satisfaction would defeat me, on this, my hunger is completely gone!

Also this is the only WOE that kills my cravings for alcohol, pretty good side benefit I'd say! :doah:

[Lisa N]

Carbs have a ton of water, and low carb dieting in the early stages causes a lot of water loss, which is why in the first few weeks the weight seems to just fly off. Sure some of it is fat, and you probably will lose more fat than hc dieters, but a lot of it is also water.

The water loss that you refer to generally occurs with low fat diets as well but to a lesser degree. On low carb, the initial water loss comes from depleting glycogen stores which carry with them 3 grams of water for every gram of glycogen and this is usually within the first 3-5 days. After that, your body has switched over the fat metabolism and burning ketones instead of glycogen. There is also an increase in urination initially, but when you are following the plan as directed and drinking 2+ liters of water per day, this is also replaced. Water loss without replacement = dehydration.

[black57]

First off, this isn't a diet. Some people make the mistake of making this a diet instead of a a way of eating. Yet, it can help reduce calorie intake because the appetite is controlled. I used to be ravenous within 2 housr after eating a filling meal. I often had 2 servings of everything at dinner and still feel ravenous shortly after. One thing for sure, I knew something was very wrong. The inability to control my appetite was problematic. Becoming able to eat a healthy breakfast at 8 AM and not again until lunchtime ( which may be 12:30 or 1:00 and dinner at 6:00 PM ) is quite a feat. By eating foods that trigger an over production of insulin, causes an over-production of appetite, a yo yo that I am relieved to be off of. I am happy that I can wander away from food without being afraid that something terrible is going to happen. Research the facts.

Black57


We live in a country that is overflowing with food and very little has been studied about it.

[Caddis]

I will take anything that allows me to feel great, get healthy and not be hungry.

[black57]

I have no idea if I am eating more or less calories because i always eat enough food to fill me up. However, when I was eating a high carbohydrate diet, I had a ravenous appetite. I regularly ate two helpings of everything out of fear that I would become hungry in an hour or so...and,often I would. My hunger, if not quickly satisfied, would make me ill, weak and shaky.

In contrast to my new way of eating, I eat a high protein/fat meal and can go for hours without eating. I have to remind myself, sometimes, to eat after 3 hours. I eat 3 meals a day until i am comfortably full. I can look at a big chunk of chocolate cake without eating it. I can be at the computer without a bowl of Lays Potato Chips and Oreo cookies ( Mmmmm). However, I eat so much food! I still have my appetite. I have a new, kinder,gentler hunger which allows me to eat sensibly, healthily, WISELY. I have lost weight thanks to my "new found" sensibility and I have perfect cholesterol, fats and blood glucose levels.Hmmm, my skin is no longer itchy ( it has been itchy for years ) and my weekly migraines have vanished. I am sure calories had nothing to do with those.

If I continued eating a high carb diet, I would eventually be as fat as my grandmother, God rest her soul, and as diabetic as my mother and as gouty as my brother. What the hell? Why is this diet so difficult to believe? We hear how important water is because the body is made up of 75% water. How much of the body is made up of protein and fat? :angel: We think that good nutritions is rocket science and commercialism ( Don't believe da hype!!! ) :doah:

[RCFletcher]

I absolutely think this is a low-calorie diet - at least for me. I think a calorie is a calorie is a calorie,

I absolutly think not!

At least not how calories are currently calculated. The whole point of high fat, low carb diets like Atkins is that you get most of your energy from fats.

The way calorific intake is calculated, you get 9 calories from every gram of fat, 4 from carbs and 4 from protein.

However, on a diet like Atkins these sums start to go wrong. There are tow ways in which the body burns fat. The first way is when it is burned bu brown fat cells to produce body heat. Everyone does this, and yes, the fats give a full 9 calories.

On a diet like Atkins however we go into ketosis. In this case fats are irreversably changed into ketones which can be burned by the muscles and brain. However, we can't store them well and many are washed away in our urine and excreted in our sweat and even our breath. So, each gram of fat gives a much lower amount of calories to the body - maybe 4 or 5.

The other point is protein. Our bodies don't burn all the protein we eat. They use a lot of it for repairs.

I average 2,000 calories a day according to fitday, but as I get 70% of my calories from fat, 25% from protein and only 5% from carbs, the actual amount I burn willbe much less than 2,000. More like 1,300 and this doesn't even allow for the subtraction of the protein I am not burning!

All the above is the 'metabolic advantage' Atkins talks about in his book.

So a calorie is not a calorie if most of your calories come from fat.

[wrightway7]

I have noticed that my calories are much lower than ever. I am almost shocked at how few calories I am consuming. The key here, is that I am consuming these fewer calories but not ever feeling hungry, never have a hunger pain, never want sugar or never want bread.This is a good thing. So what is your point, exactly?
Shannon in Venus

[mollymom]

BTW did anyone notice that the person who started this thread never came back...at least never posted? I read every word in every post, and came to the same conclusion..what was the original point of this post?

For my two cents worth, I am averaging between 1600 and 1800 calories a day (calculated on Fitday). I don't really care if I am losing weight which was my original intent. I had some wonderful "side effects".... The improvement in my general feeling of well being, the lack of hunger ALL the time, the improvement in my sleeping, my energy, everything...matters more to me than what is happening with my weight right now. I am not gaining though. So I really don't give a darn right now about the weight, I am loving this WOE!

[Jerry M]

No one who is well informed on a scientific basis can deny that ANY successful diet follows the energy equation:

Calories Ingested < Calories expended to lose weight.

Its basic physics and chemistry. Of course some people are better suited to certain diets because of taste, lifestyles ect. I can show you people who have lost 100+ lbs on everything from Subway, WW, Jenny Craig, LC, fasting, blood type, grapefruit, shakes, etc.

And the ONLY things these diets have in common is the energy equation.

[LCAndy]

Its definetly not reduced calories i was searching the Atkins site one night and i came up with the program for people with ED (eating disorders) and he reccomends that they count calories and it be anywhere from 1500 cal-1800 cal so i can guarentee you eat that on a very low fat diet you wont loose nearly as fast as atkins says.

[bfritz_pa]

I'll agree with you to a certain extent.

LC diets have the effect of lowering my average daily calorie intake.

However

I do not restrict my calories ever..Because of the appetite suppressing effect.

So I don't feel the need to suppress my calories.. Man them high fat cheeseburgers without the bread just hit the spot.. Never saw a cheeseburger on a low calorie diet. Have you??

[loCarbJ]

I tried Jenny Craig in the early 1990's and cut my calories down to under 1800 and drifted between 202 and 232 pounds. Then I went on a low carb diet and increased my calories to 2000 and lost 55 pounds! I started in the late 1990's and have kept off to this day, eating more calories than I ever did on Jenny Craig!

[PoofieD]

No one who is well informed on a scientific basis can deny that ANY successful diet follows the energy equation:

Calories Ingested < Calories expended to lose weight.


Actually if you have been out there doing the real research on this you can.
Take for instance early tests with 1000 calorie high carb vs 1000 Calorie low carb.
The results make you go hmmmm. until you really have educated yourself on insulin.....................
We will wait for you to do that :-)

[NickFender]

I agree 100% with the "calories ingested < calories expended" formula of weight loss. But, as RCFletcher pointed out a few posts up, there are variables on both sides of the equation that must be taken into account.

If, for instance, a group of people on a 1,000 cal/day low carb diet lose more weight than a group group of people on a 1,000 cal/day low-fat diet, the correct observation is to assume that calories expended somehow increased as well. Again, see RC's explanation above. It's basic physics, but that doesn't mean it's simple.

[RCG]

I know this is an old old post.

When I weighed 270lbs I needed 3861 calories a day just to maintain my weight.

Now on LC maintenance I need 2717 calories to maintain my 190lbs.

Of course I eat fewer calories.

[watcher16]

I agree 100% with the "calories ingested < calories expended" formula of weight loss. But, as RCFletcher pointed out a few posts up, there are variables on both sides of the equation that must be taken into account.

If, for instance, a group of people on a 1,000 cal/day low carb diet lose more weight than a group group of people on a 1,000 cal/day low-fat diet, the correct observation is to assume that calories expended somehow increased as well. Again, see RC's explanation above. It's basic physics, but that doesn't mean it's simple.I don't agree that it is simple physics. Yes, this presentation of the equation is simple, but it is not true. I believe certain foods, exercises or methods cause you to loose or gain more fat or build or loose more muscle than this formule would predict.

Cyclic fasting is an example which makes you burn fat while you can have an enourmous amount of calories for food. I do the Warrior Diet now for a year and the eating has nothing to do with less calories. In contrary, you have to overeat to have the most success. No one seems to be able to believe this. I did, and I lost 14 kg of fat and gained 6,5 kg of muscle.

[kyrie]

I've been losing weight on Atkins, eating 1600 to 2000 calories a day.

I once tried a low-fat diet with calories restricted to 1200, and not only was I hungry and edgy, but I didn't lose weight, even after a full month.

I agree that low-carb leads to lower appetite, and there have been a few days when it was close to bedtime and I'd only had 1400, but those days I also hadn't made it to 20 grams of carbs, so I'd have a little more to eat.

Edited to add-- the more you eat, the faster your metabolism, right? That's not a license to gorge, but it's definitely a reason to avoid letting your caloric intake get too low!

[watcher16]

the more you eat, the faster your metabolism, right? That's not a license to gorge, but it's definitely a reason to avoid letting your caloric intake get too low!
Yep, I have had a couple of times I stagnated, and I had to force myself to start eating more to continue my diet (or 'life-style' as I prefer to call it).

I had to do what I told others now for myself... Hard to believe also for myself. But it works.

[daffodyl]

For myself, it has worked out this way:
I began by just recording everything I ate, without restricting a thing. I weighed 285 lbs, and ate about 3500 to 4000 calories a day. And I only ate when I felt physically HUNGRY. My carb intake was about 300 to 400 grams per day.

When I began to cut back on carbs, I still ate whenever I felt hungry. I filled in the gaps with protein and fat. I also still kept track of intake. My calories consumed began to fall back, as I felt less hunger. AFter 2 weeks of cutting back on carbs, I was eating about 100 grams carbs daily, and about 2800 calories. The scale began to move. Should an obese 40 year old woman lose weight on 2800 calories a day? he he he.. I dont think so.

Eventually, I found I was ready for the Induction level without too much effort. At present, I consume about 20 grams of carbs daily, and about 1800 calories. I have lost 22 lbs, in 2 months.

15 years ago, I had to cut back to 1200 calories on a low-fat diet (diebetic exchanges) to lose weight. And I walked 2 miles a day. And I still stalled out.

Frankly, I feel wonderful doing what I am doing now. And it is working! Thank the Lord.

--Daff