I'm bringing this topic over to the War Zone because I find myself getting into it here and there on the Forum with people advising other people to "count calories" in order to lose weight faster, break a stall, or otherwise improve their success on their low-carb journey.

Many have posted excerpts from DANDR in which the great Dr. Atkins says that calories DO count: e.g. that a 5-carb, 1500-calorie diet will work faster than a 5- carb 2000-calorie diet, and other words to that effect. To quote such excerpts creates a serious distortion of the low-carbohydrate approach to metabolic energy management, as fully explained by Dr. Atkins in this book (and his successors in many more recent books about LC eating).

In chapter 1 of DANDR (paperback 1999), Atkins debunks what he calls "the calorie myth." He discusses the metabolic changes from carbohydrate control that result in a more efficient use of consumed and stored energy. Insulin is the key.

p. 6 "This metabolic correction is so striking that many of you will be able to lose weight eating a higher number of calories than you have been eating on diets top-heavy in carbohydrates. The so-called "calorie theory" has been a millstone around the necks of dieters and a miserable and malign influence on their efforts to lose."

Many of us on this site have been dieting forever. We've tried them all. Doubtless we've succeeded with them all. We've cut calories as much as we could for as long as we could, and still the weight creeps back. What can help us get off this roller coaster of hopelessness?

Please don't fall into the "calorie myth" again. Pick a low-carbohydrate approach. Follow it consistently and patiently as you learn to make it a lifestyle. You may not lose weight fast. You may not lose as much as you wish (see Taubes). However, in the most essential ways, you will make your body healthier in the long run. This is not a quick fix, but it can be a lifesaver.

Calorie intake is absolutely important. It is not the be all, end all at all but it has its place in realizing your goal weights. using it as a tool like any other position we take when we stall, etc. to keep the weight loss in gear.

LC diets produce appetite suppression for many. that in itself can become a calorie restrictor even without intention.

I am basic 0 carb. I can easily exist on 900 cals cause I am just not hungry. simple as that. not trying to restrict calories but deep keto is my natural calorie suppressor.

How many LC people over-use HWC in coffee. if in a stall HWC is cut back cause most are not measuring it. it is higher calorie. cut some of that back, you are cutting calories.

How many LC people cut cheese when they can't lose well. Many say they might be dairy sensitive, but 4 oz hard cheddar is about 440 calories. cut that to 2 oz and you shaved off 220 calories.

yes it is important. as one gets smaller your caloric needs are not the same as when heavier. that is a basic fact. But people are different physically and lifestyles are different and the calorie needs of 2 people, same age, same weight won't be the same. It is know YOUR needs. use calories as a tool in working your own plan for your own body.

Take a person with portion control issues. Many of us heavier people have the problem of having no shut off system in our body. We eat huge portions and can still be hungry after. while deep Keto can suppress some appetite, the mind can make people eat alot more in one sitting. I can inhale 4-5 chicken thighs in no time . doing this I can't lose well, so I control myself some and eat 3. cutting out 1-2 thighs means I cut out about 300 calories easily. and then I can start losing well again.

I don't think anyone should use calorie counting as an absolute only tool in any dieting plan. But it plays an absolute part in it.

whether calories are lowered thru appetite suppression or thru a person eliminating a few thru using less fats for cooking, etc....it is a part of losing weight and always will be.
__________________

ASK ANY successful maintainer on this board. they know their calorie intake and they know the amt of calories they can handle before they fall into the 'gain weight' area.

lc'ers count carbs. carbs are calories also. by increasing carbs in maintenance you are also naturally increasing your calorie intake. So when people add carbs in maintenance selectively, they are finding their carb limits before gaining starts. It is also they are finding their calorie level to maintain.

Hi, Karen. I thought you might find your way over here!

Yes, this is an issue with many people. The "appetite suppression" feature of LC doesn't work so well for people who eat (or overeat) from habit, emotional needs, or lack of experience in nutritional monitoring. A tracker is very useful to discover how much one might be consuming when hunger is not the problem and appetite control is not the answer.

However, in his original 1972 book, Atkins has an entire chapter titled "To Stay Fat--Keep on Counting Calories."

He says, "People who eat double portions out of habit sometimes continue on a very high calorie intake. Overeaters unfamiliar with the new level of satiety to be achieved on this diet sometimes think they still have to eat double portions. If they'd try eating less, they'd find they were just as comfortable...If you're in a hurry to lose, you are better off to restrict quantities, but not when it gets to the point where you have to put up with feeling deprived."

However, "eating less" measured by calories is not the fundamental technique of long-term success with LC nutrition. I'd like to hear from maintainers who use calories as their key to success. My bet is on a commitment to carbohydrate restriction--the quality and quantity of carbohydrates consumed, not calories.

To advise "watching your calories" as a strategy--whether it's limiting HWC or cheese or the occasional sweet potato--makes no sense. Yes to this. Only as a sidelight.

Each of us designs a low-carb menu that works for us as a normal style of everyday eating, determining what mix and what amount of carbohydrate foods (vegetables, cheese, fruits) keeps the metabolic engine burning fat.

Your 0 Carb/900 calorie method may work for a while. In the long term, you will not be serving your body's energy requirements in a healthy way.

Calories definitely count, with my metabolism.

First...note he said MANY of you, not ALL of you. Second, as I read it, this criticism of the calorie theory is aimed at the practice of using calorie reduction within a high carbohydrate diet in weight loss efforts. This first pitch, in the book's first chapter, is to convince us of the metabolic advantage that is low carbing and he does a great job of it. As the book goes on, however, he gets into more detail, including using calorie counting in addition to low carbing for some individuals...those who are not 'the many'.

I don't agree. These are direct quotes, not distortions.

I owe the last 15 lbs. of my weight loss to cnmLisa's post of Atkins' statements about calories. I wouldn't have even thought to track calories if she hadn't posted those excerpts; I, too, focused strongly on the metabolic advantage, just-count-carbs that is the main thrust of the books. I hadn't remembered the advice about calories. One of the things he said that spoke to me, was, “If weight loss stops short of your ideal weight...you must conclude that the quantities within the diet are too great” and “You may have to count calories in addition to carbohydrate..."

So it looks like he contradicts himself, but I think he was just trying to be inclusive of all metabolisms in his calorie remarks. He is clear in saying they are a secondary tactic to removing starches and sweets.

Anyway, I'm going to take his advice that works for me, as I think we all should. This isn't one-size-fits-all. It's not even one-size-fits an individual from start to finish. From what I have observed over the years on this board, most of us have to tweak the program as we go along to make it to goal. If I only adhered to cutting-the-carbs, I'd still be 15 lbs fatter. And I still have a long way to goal.

Here are some Atkins calorie quotes, for those of you who have not seen them: Calories According to Atkins

It's both. I see maintainers post their meals; some count calories, some don't. I haven't seen anyone consuming beginning-level calories or carbs for that matter. I'm always kind of shocked at how little they eat.

I can see why people turn to a way to look at portions when the popular LC plans don't work so well. But it can be a problem with the plan, not a problem with the person.

On Atkins and PP I overate protein, as I found out later, while monitoring nutrition and on plan. Thus insulin was too high even on an LC plan.

On the other hand I agree that the calorie is not useful. I do watch portion size, though. Personally I count grams of protein, carb, and fat.

I think it's from all those years where the experts looked at portions just from the idea of "calories" of energy. That is so harmful, for all the reasons Atkins and Taubes mention.

Also I think it's from trying to simplify or "dumb down" so the masses can understand. If experts say to count portions, and we throw out the calorie, apparently there is an unstoppable need to measure portion size. Some diets have tried, with a different measure for each of protein, carb, and fat. Remember the deck of cards for protein (argh, regardless of the size of the person), or my personal favorite, the fist of protein.

There's the idea that people don't like to count, period, but calories are a measure that is lowest common denominator. Useless, but there.

The voice of experience. Thanks for the balancing view.

Hi. I'm a successful maintainer and actually no.

The best success I've had has been on more than 3000 calories per day, very clean VLC. Types of foods were/are infinitely more important than calorie count.

I cringe when I see newbies start worrying about calorie counting because they're looking at people who are years ahead of them, often with physical illnesses and issues, and they want to jump to the middle of the book so to speak instead of starting at page one and absorbing the book page by page.

I'm using the 'book' analogy not as a reference to DANDR or anything; simply as the fact that you generally don't start a book in the middle to try and cheat the process.

These kind of short cuts, IMO, are like trying to buy shoes based on what someone else's shoe size is. It doesn't matter if the average shoe size is 7, if you're a 10. That 7 would be a complete waste of your time.

Exactly. 3,000 calories would never work for me. We are all different, and no one level works for every single person. One person's WOE is another person's shortcut. I have done strict induction, <20 carbs, eating ribeye, eggs, fats... and it worked to a point. That point was (from 211 lbs to...) about 175 lbs. Cutting calories broke that barrier for me, thanks to Dr. Atkins' recommendation.

This is the way I see it. You can speed up weight loss by eating less, you may even be able to do this without being hungry--because just like low carbohydrate, eating less will decrease insulin levels--eating less doesn't always equal more hunger. So it can work for weight loss.

The problem often comes in maintenance. Suppose you cut calories to 800 a day, and that's all you've found that works for you for weight loss. Maybe that's fine, at a certain point--if you're very careful with what you eat, and you've chosen an incredibly nutrient rich diet. Between low carb and low calories, you'd be on a very ketogenic plan, it makes sense that some people would experience appetite suppression.

Okay. But what happens in maintenance? Unless you're somebody who can stay healthy on 800 calories perpetually, even once you've reached your goal weight, you're going to have to eat more at that point. And this will raise insulin levels--and with even the most ketogenic diet, if you raise calories, even if the increase in calories is all fat, you're going to be raising your insulin levels. Maybe end up hungrier in maintenance than you were in weight loss. That was sort of my experience with low calorie dieting--I'd get used to eating less calories during weight loss, but then when I got to goal, I'd be hungrier once I loosened up on the calories.

I count my calories as a measure of appetite, trying to eat in such a way that 2000 calories satisfies me--very low carbs, just enough protein, and then fat. But I'm always allowed to eat more. I hope this is close enough to how I'll need to eat in maintenance that my maintenance diet isn't much more insulinogenic than my weight loss diet.

This is why I keep looking at studies showing mixed meals with olive oil having a lower insulin response than mixed meals with butter, etc.--maybe if I choose right, I can eat more in maintenance than during weight loss, without increasing insulin levels.

May I say...you have never been very overweight, so I think you have a pretty ideal metabolism, one I would love to have!

As I've read through many books about low-carbohydrate theory, I am struck by the fact that there are many different weight management issues.

Why do some people stay thin, no matter what they eat? Why do some people get fat (say 100 lbs. or more) but then stop getting fatter? Why do some people never stop gaining weight until some dietary intervention occurs? Metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, "over-eating," thyroid deficiency, the effects of wheat, genetic disposition--all these things are in the mix to explain the individual differences in weight management.

Does low-carb address them all? If so, how? What role do calories play?

I'm saying that calorie consumption is among the least important factors, whether you find yourself with a hundred pounds of accumulated fat, or "only" twenty. Keeping fat accumulation under control is not about how many calories you consume, but what kind of foods you eat.

We don't have a one-size-fits-all dietary prescription. People adjust their consumption of fat, protein, and vegetable carbohydrate to suit a sustainable lifestyle at a healthy weight (sometimes more than their "ideal"). Fast weight loss must be discarded as a goal in favor of a diet with sufficient energy and comfortable satiety.

Reducing calories is, at best, a short-term strategy. I don't want to encourage anybody on this site--beginner or veteran--to make it their focus.

This is a good thread. I waited until now to jump in just to see the different perspectives that would surface. I can comfortably say that I agree with a lot of what each of you above has said. This isn't me ducking the issue, but recognizing that most of the points made are valid and can be backed up with not only personal experience of the poster but quotes from DANDR.

My take on the do calories count discussion is yes and no. If someone is following DANDR exactly as written, not tweaking or changing it, then during induction I would say calories absolutely DO NOT matter. As one moves into OWL and then premaintenance, then I would say calories CAN matter. Once in maintenance, I feel that calories have an even greater role. Carb levels are still the main key to this woe, but with time passing and your body just trying to maintain - certainly not gaining but not trying to go lower, having an idea of calorie consumption can help.

I believe if you take the entire book (DANDR), and look at the broad picture that Dr. Atkins seemed to be painting for us, many would agree that carb levels are the key, but that other factors including calories matter too.

Too often I have seen people come on the boards here saying they are doing Atkins and have cut carbs to almost 0 but still not losing weight. Then look at what they are eating and drinking - fairly full meals with lots of meat and eggs along with entire bags of pork rinds and the current fad of 3 to 6 cups of bullet proof coffee. At this point, it isn't carbs that are causing them problems, it is drinking more calories than many people take in during a regular day of 3 meals and a snack. Then they say low carb doesn't work for them and disappear.

For me the take away is that everyone is different and what works well for one might not for someone else. That is why I like DANDR so much. It doesn't say everyone must be the same forever. We all are supposed to start the same during induction and then follow the plan where it and our body lead us. Good luck to all and thank you for the great comments and insights. Each person here has valuable experience to share and I enjoy all that I learn from you.

I can and prefer to maintain on 1900 calories if I stick to vLC (5%) vHF (70%) and only real food and no grains, legumes or dairy. But if I eat more carbs and less fat, I have to cut back on calories. Way back to 1100 calories when I was McDougalling or ~1350 calories when LC (10%) and HF (60%) and still eating some inflammatory grains, legumes & dairy. And over time I had to keep cutting more calories as my metabolism slowed down on the meager amounts of food.

I'm one person, but can lose and maintain several different ways, but choose the most livable & sustainable way. I starved on 1000-1200 calorie diets for three decades on and off before I tried the one thing I had never tried - adding more calories of pure fat. That's what it took to rev my metabolism up to that of a "normal" person's.

Your experience mirrors my own. I used to eat 1200 calories that were mostly carbs (because I got larger portions) and white-knuckled through the hunger until I couldn't stand it any more... and only lost less than ten pounds of the thirty I wanted to lose.

With low carb, I'd eat 1800 calories and lost 70 pounds, all the way down to goal. (My present stats reflect a hormonal issue I'm working on. That's how I gained, it's how I'll lose, this time.)

So I'm firmly in the "calories don't matter" mindset Then again, portions might be a better way of thinking of this issue? Because calories don't matter a bit... but composition sure does, and with so many here a veteran at calorie counting... with no success... I have to think that if "calories" do count, they count the LEAST.

Because when I eat carbs, they represent the only handle I have on the situation. While eating low carb means I am conscious of the fat and protein and carbs and fiber. When someone says "I had to pay attention to calories" where did that person cut them?

Across the board? Using fat? Using portion sizes?