Some people here have found that eating low carb does not require willpower once they've stopped consuming sugar and starch for a week or two. That's the difference that allows them to turn it into an ongoing way of life as opposed to a short term or on-again-off-again attempt at losing weight.

~ Kristy

Like I said, I believe hunger and cravings share physiological traits. I also believe we can take advantage of that similarity. Let's take your football game situation as an example of how this would work. If you know in advance, you can prepare for it. The way you prepare is by eating beforehand. We do this with grocery shopping too. We eat beforehand, so we don't just buy everything in sight when we get to the store. This trick would probably work with any kind of shopping, not just groceries. And it's not really a trick, it's the way it works. When you're hungry, you can't think straight until you eat.

In a booklet I'm writing, I put it this way:


(In the booklet there's a menu so that's what I'm referring to above.)

I guess that helps some people but i think where *I* and other people differ is that i never had an "over eating" problem as a result = being fat. I have a "only eat 1x per day my body stores every single bit of that stuff." and then 1 day when i actually did eat 3 meals a day (maybe literally 1x a week) i'm pretty sure it stored all that too.
on an average (past) day i would wake up at noon (luxury of being a housewife) drink 2 cups of coffee with cream and sugar.
Clean, paint, watch tv etc. I would start dinner at around 4:30 (my hubby's home around 5:15 latest) it would be a meat either fried, baked, sauted whatever ususlly ground beef, chicken, pork. (seems to be the lowest costed meats in rotation these days) along with a starchy side, and a green side. For instance, Fried chicken, mash potatoes, green beans. or Baked pork chops, Brussels sprouts, mac n cheese. (you get the picture) i NEVER went back for seconds. i ate 1 portion of meat (my husband usually ate 2 or 3) i would eat a normal helping of either side on a 10 inch dinner plate. 9 out of 10 times i did not even finish what i put on the plate. Repeat that until Saturday or Sunday. One weekend day i usually wake up early around 8/9am cook breakfast (eggs, bacon, toast, hashbrowns or french toast and bacon) I would eat a normal sized person's plate 2 eggs, 3 strips bacon, 1 slice toast small serving hashbrowns (not a huge fan.) We might go out, and get Mc Donalds double cheese burgers on the run (we like them plain, i would get one my husband 2, if we were really hungry we'd get a meal deal, burger fries drink and never upsized.) I would cook dinner as exampled above, then maybe we'd snag ice cream or i'd make a brownie or fruit salad something. (this only happened usually 1 day a week). Conclusion: i've seen SKINNY people even people who are skinny now that use to be fat eat way way way more food, and not be fat. I never had the "over eating" problem. I got to eat what i wanted because i ate so little each day. My weight never changed up or down, i was as close to 250lbs give or take 5lbs UNLESS i tried a diet.

Eating before i'm going to eat, kinda makes zero sense to me. I wasn't "hungry" and that's why i didn't fail at ignoring the "temptation" i wanted to taste the chips, just because i remembered what they tasted like and i knew it would be something "different." The rotational variety of Atkins food is pretty slim unless you have unlimited dollars to buy whatever your atkins heart desires. I've been stuck on a chicken, ham, pork chop, bacon rotation 80% of my induction (i HATE ground beef unless it's covered up in something like spaghetti, or meat loaf (w/ ketchup) or gravy etc.) My "craving" wasn't for the potato because my brain thinks i'm starving, i was craving the potato because i want to taste things that i haven't taste in a week and a half. I want more variety. (i'm getting there i know, but boy is it taking forever).

When i was vegetarian i honestly can say i wasn't "hungry" after about a month. On Atkins diet now down to day 11 i can honestly say my "hunger" has subsided drastically (i was starving my first 3 days really starving grazing like crazy.) So it can't be "hunger" that made me fail at being a vegetarian. I wasn't hungry. I could just not have things my mind/tastebuds desired. like BACON! lol. now it's the opposite i now desire FRUIT, massive amounts of fruit (sweet i guess to be quite frank, but fruit sounds more tasty than a bowl of icecream seriously...the chips would only have been disappointing anyway lol).

My point is, i realize some people have "no self control" and eating something healthy before going to the grocery store helps them not make poor decisions and likewise i guess in the "chip" situation. I'm so use to not eating very much in the past though that those temptations will only be my down fall if my tastebuds get in the way, it has nothing to do with hunger. We never bought snack cakes or chips or garbage sweet cereals to begin with. I find myself wanting things i didn't even like before i started eating mostly meats and greens. I dream about them lol. my first thought after a huge dinner on Atkins is, that salt was great now where's the sweet to balance this taste out of my mouth? (i never did that before.) Coffee and almond milk have currently been my savior and despite the sweet craving for my tongue i've stayed really good at no more than 3-4 artificial sweetener packets per day. I'm proud of my self-control and i hope one day i'll be eating my words, but as it stands now, i don't see anything keeping me from diving into a watermelon, or crashing the krispy kream drive through except for that self-control. Thanks for the imput though i'm curious to know the menu on your pamphlet, and if it can cure my "sugar craving" for the taste of something sweet. lol

"Atkins didn't work for me" in the past because after losing 20 pounds and looking so much better I started sneaking in the processed carbs. And bread. And then I started binging again, gaining weight, and feeling horrible. Atkins works GREAT if you stick with meat and veggies.

Yes! Not just meat and veg tho, nuts, eggs, fish, seafood, cheese, butter....

All natural and filling!!

Jo xxx

I think, from research I've done over the years on hormonal issues, that they can be responsible for a lot of weight gain... myself, I tried Atkins and lost about 10kg before I stalled at 85kg (still far overweight). Nothing would budge it. I got really sick, spent ages trying to figure out what it was, never really got any answers from doctors. I treated myself as I saw fit, with what information I had.

In the first month of being seriously ill, unable to feed/clothe/wash myself, while living on soup and whatever my husband could get me, I GAINED all of it back

When I felt better, I tried Atkins again, trying to get back on track... and it wasn't working anymore. I did the same thing as before, but my body wasn't responding.

I was severely depressed, thinking that short of expensive lyposuction, I would never be a healthy weight again... but one of the ladies on this forum mentioned the hcg diet, I did a substantial amount of reading before embarking on the regime, fully prepared to treat it as my LAST CHANCE AT LIFE.

I have succeeded so far, have just passed the 3-week mark and I'm down 7kg.

I quickly lost 20 pounds, and have been stuck for a looooong time. Thought I didn't need to track my food, just my carbs. Just recently started using myfitnesspal, and Wow! I am eating way more protein than I thought! Wonderin now if all that protein was being processed into glucose? Cutting back on the meat. Anyway, I'm down 2 pounds today. First loss in quite a while.

RIGHT ON!!!

I always reject the term "DIET" and say it is a way of life. A way of eating for total health and nutrition, not just losing weight! A "DIET" is s set up for failure because once a goal is reached, people stop and go back to their old ways. You are changing your body, changing your mind, changing your health and changing your life!

And when someone says it didn't work for them, probably 98% of the time it is because they did not do it right! Period, end of story. Too many "tweakers" out there. One little _____ will hurt you! And trust me on this, I know, I have "tweaked" the plan a few times and fallen on and off the wagon. I have lost and largely kept off 100 pounds since starting in 2003. And when I do not eat right and eat "normal" foods I feel like crap! When I eat cleanly and stay on plan I feel like a million bucks! Since 2003 I have not been sick once! No flu, no colds, no fever...nothing! And this is from a guy who was sick all winter every year, got the flu every year and at one point was on 4 medications including an inhaler!

I also stay away from all the ca-ca-doody low carb bars and shakes and crapola. I used the stuff when I first started to get off the really bad stuff and then got off most of it. I do have an occasional Atkins granola type bar while out on a long bike ride...but usually end up regretting it. My body is to the point where I cannot stand the taste or texture of the bars and such and all LC sweeteners leave a bad after taste, especially those in diet sodas!

And if a person does not want to do Atkins, or follow a LC per se...try this. Eat meat and veggies...some fruits, occasionally. And very, very sparingly eat some root vegetables like sweet potato or a potato. Rice, as long as it is not processed or enriched and a serving is about 1/2 cup, and then only rarely. Drink only home brewed tea, iced tea and water.

Don't eat too fast and do not over eat! And I dare you to tell me your not losing weight and feeling great!

And for those who still say, well that's you...I'm different....okay. Your bag...Low carbing DOES work, and will work for most. If you can look at the person in the mirror, look that person right in the eyes and say, "I followed the program to the letter and it didn't work for me" then find one that does work. And please, no funny chemicals, crap processed foods or weirdo drinks laced with all manner of stuff. Eat whole foods! No GMO foods and organic if possible. Real food your body was intended to eat. But for the love of your health...do not cheat, follow the plan to the letter and get healthy!




BRAVO! One snag, as you seem to have hit, found and recovered from is eating too much. At first, we have a lot of fat to burn, some of us had a ton of fat to burn, merely removing "bad" foods and eating to plan allowed a rather free fall type of weight loss. Also hidden in there is some folks report that eating too lean of meats also causes trouble. Increase your fat intake and the weight starts to slide off again. The balance of fat to lean is important as well. The bottom line, with LC or any plan is when you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. With LC though you do not force your body into also burning muscle mass. LC is really a misnomer too. Maybe it should be PC (proper carbs)?

Except... when I lowered carbs from 32 to 22, and INCREASED my calories an average of 50 a day... I lost weight.

Calories count. But not with math; with chemistry.

Counting calories is an exercise in futility. First, the calorie counts of food are imprecise for many reasons. Second, a person has to measure their food with complete accuracy to total their intake. Third, measuring output is incredibly imprecise, even with the best technology available for it today. Any comfort or guidance someone gets from counting calories is going to come from the exercise itself; the numbers will at best give them a very general ball park.

When I was in the 340s, I was able to eat anywhere from 1800 to 4300 (no typos here!) and maintain my weight. I was also able to eat 4000ish and lose weight, so long as I ate near my CCLL (10ish net carbs), but only for a couple days. Since I began, I've always had to eat closer to 1000-1200 to lose weight for longer stretches than 2 days, so long as I eat at my CCLL or below.

For me, trying to guage cals in and cals out, to effect a loss, is like trying to hit a horsefly in a strong wind with a bowling ball.

ETA for clarity: so if I think counting cals is useless, why am I counting the 1000-1200? It's an easy measure to discuss. But really what those numbers represent is low enough carbohydrate AND protein so that my exaggerated insulin response is not as exaggerated. That allows me to burn some body fat. Blood tests have shown my fasting insulin and c-peptide are still high, but lower than before...I guess low enough on this regimen that fat burning can occur.

Another nteresting note: on 1000 cals 85% fat I have tons of energy. On 3500 cals, 85% I have tons of energy. In between, however, I'm dragging. Why??? No clue, wish I knew.

Weight loss is not about calories per se. It's about the biochemical and physiological processes that our bodies do to the stuff we eat (protein, carbs, fat), as represented (badly) in discussion by calories. We don't have cellular "calorie receptors". Calories in food are just measures of potential energy. Not all food calories are converted to energy in our bodies, for various reasons.



Yeah, I agree. "Low carb" really is almost meaningless in its breadth.

That's far more onerous than it needs to be. I found that one can track what one eats for a few days and make a few changes to lower calories. IMHO what you need to do is lower calories, not track them obsessively. Last few days I've been gaining... I know why, I've been eating peanuts instead of having a real meal. I can swap out some fish based meals that are lower in fat and still low carb, eat more veggies, but be more cautious with butter and oil.

Knowing the exact number of calories I ate isn't all that helpful and that level of obsession is a waste of my time.


Probably because your body is spending a lot of energy trying to digest 3500 calories worth of food.

Most of us have loads of fat we can draw upon for energy, it doesn't all have to come from the dietary sort.

I am one of them. Willpower doesn't enter into it. I have changed my attitude to food. I don't read cookery books all the time any more, although I do cook and my husband still really appreciates what I cook. Sometimes my girls (18 and 20) even eat it too!

My meals are fairly regular but one of the great insights about low carbing for me is the realisation that human being in earlier phases of their history - before intensive agriculture - didn't get to eat three meals a day let alone three substantial ones. If they'd been like many people are now - including pre-LC me - they'd have been climbing up the walls. But with a real LC diet (not a diet with mainly substitutes for baked goods etc.) I think I could go a few days living on just water and a bit of dried beef, say, and not go crazy.

That's my point. The difference between hunger and cravings. This difference lies in the things we're driven to eat. We're hungry for food - we crave sweets. I also say hunger and cravings share physiological traits, and we can take advantage of this. If you're trying to avoid eating sweets (basically, if you're trying to eat an Atkins diet), then you eat food beforehand, so when you're presented with sweets, your cravings for them will be that much weaker, and you will eat that much less sweets, if you do eat them. Does that make more sense?

About calories. Your own experience says it's not about calories or overeating. When you say "eating before you're going to eat doesn't make sense", are you thinking it's because of the calories? But your own experience says it's not about calories or overeating. So what's it about then? It's about food vs non-food. You said you "got to eat what you wanted because you ate so little each day". What did you eat so little of? Was it mostly food, or mostly non-food?

Put both ideas together and it begins to make sense, doesn't it? Eat before you're going to eat, if the thing you eat before is food, and the thing you're going to eat later is sweets (treats, chips, cake, carbs).

The above is for the practical side of things, i.e. how you do it every day. For the scientific side, it's all about hormones (primarily insulin), and how those hormones regulate fat tissue. Put it this way, food does not disrupt those hormones, on the contrary, food makes those hormones work well; but non-food disrupts those hormones, fat tissue is not regulated anymore, we end up with a disorder of excess fat accumulation.

So what is food and what is non-food? In my opinion:

Food = Meat and veggies = what you're hungry for
Non-food = everything else basically = what you're craving for = sweets, cake, sugar and starch


The menu in my booklet is mostly meat and fat, veggies optional. Basically, it's the induction part of the Atkins diet. But with some leeway to be determined individually, depending on progress, and depending on Real Life™.

That's a tiny amount of carbs, isn't it? I remember Taubes citing one experiment where one guy went all-meat, started losing weight, then ate just one apple a day and his fat loss stopped. This tells us that it works, but it must be applied individually, because not everybody can eat 50g carbs and still lose weight. Some have to cut back even more, others have to cut out carbs completely.

Eating is a very emotional thing. I can understand why people feel reluctant to give up what is perceived as a source of comfort and pleasure for what seems to them something much more austere. I wouldn't have thought I could do it either. But it worked. My belief in LC is evidence-based, as they say. And the emotional thing has sort of gone away - or attached itself to something else.