College might be too optimistic...we all saw the grammar.

Mr. Tiger seems to think grammar isn't too important when talking about a serious subject, but when all you have to communicate with is the words you are reading on a forum...I'd say it's pretty important...

Ooops, not2fat, I removed my most recent posting, as I wanted to elaborate. Sorry for any confusion. I'll repost presently with more details.

Doreen

Likely a college dorm ... In a duplicate posting, in another forum, TigerLB55 indicated that he was an Anatomy/ physiology major. The post was a copy & paste of "ketones and de-amination of proteins will harm the kidneys", which was already here in this thread, so it was removed. Duplicate postings, and copy & pastes in multiple forums are removed in order to avoid replicated or missed replies, which is confusing for readers and members who wish to respond.

We have welcomed in the past, and will continue to welcome persons who wish to argue against low carb, as long as they present supporting research for their arguments. That's only fair, but the person who wishes to present such arguments should expect rebuttal and debate in return, and be prepared to support their claims with the necessary research and accurate science.

I too look forward to the next posting, and hope that it provides the requested references.

Doreen

Well whad'ya know... I step away for a day to play golf and I miss a good bundle (schoolyard slang for fight).

This thread started with Calories and would like to return for a moment. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with bath water in our condemnation of calorie theory and lusty defense of low carbohydrate diets.

Quote from Atkins

"I don't encorage you to stuff yourself. Calories are not a major consideration on this diet,but I have known dieters who have lost weight very slowly, indeed, because they persisted in regarding my no hunger promise as an invitation to eat untill they could hardly walk"

Other low carb writers also, despite their "never count calories again" slogans also concede the overeating point as perhaps the runner up to carbohydrate as the the leading causes of slow weight loss.

We ourselves often refer to "minimum calories to consume" to counter the starvation problem. But neither should we claim that low carb diets are "all-you-can-eat diets"

Atkins again

"On a low carbohydrate diet your appetite will tend to be more moderate. Take advantage of that, and you'll lose weight more easily."

The Eades go further. They say that too much food is the second most common reason for slow weight loss and plateaus. They too advocate portion control. They also suggest that, as fat grams have more calories, and providing that the protein level is as they recommend - high , nd the carbohydrate level is - low , then and only then should you reduce the calories- by lowering the fat. A fat gram has 9 calories and protein and carbohydrate have four. In this lower fat context the Eades would reduce dairy and nuts to lower the calorific content of the diet.


So Calories are part of the story. If they were the whole story, then I would be at weightwatchers.

I thought that I might come in directly to the point here and not sideways like a lobster ( can't spell crab)

Well, yes, they are part of the story. But this does not mean mean that calories from carbs, are the same as calories from protein or fat. This simplistic assumption is why low-calorie diets fail.

Low-carb, is not low-calorie, nor high-calorie, it's an entirely different way of looking at nutrition, that focuses on understanding how our bodies respond to different nutrients by understanding the biochemistry involved in the process.

Wa'il

And I am a rocket scientist So sorry, I could not resist. It is just that with so many posts and so many times of asking for a reference to any information given, yet no references, well, I think some people just post to start fires.....

However, kudos to all of those wonderful references that clearly provide scientific proof of our low carb WOE and a well backed arguments from our LC experts.....Dont get me wrong, I welcome a good argument, that can be backed with pertinent information.

Cindy

I have been low-carbing for 40 years. My friend, Dr Wolfgang Lutz, has been eating this way for over half a century and has successfully treated tens of thousands of patients.

It works -- for life.

Dr. Barry,

It is an honour to have you aboard, and I'm glad you decided to join us!

Wa'il

When i read these threads i see many people who seem to be threatened by anybody even question low-carbing. My text books are no longer here so i am going on what i have in my notes. My grammer is not the best, but i have never been good at english.

No matter what is being said losing/gaining wieght is very easy concept i have already gone over this. What makes everythong so diffucult is when your trying to constanly lose and slow down your metabolism. Losing Body Fat is an even harder fight. But rember a pound of fat is 3500 calories you have to have a defiecit of enegry to grab away from your stores.

Many of you were pounding away 3000+ calories before you low carb because you would just eat so much as it much easy to snack on a whole bag of chips then it is to eat a pound of meat. If you dont belive me eat 5000+ calories every day for the next month of nothing but low carb food and you know what? you will gain weight.

Many of us were surviving on 1200 calories a day doing cardio, cardio, cardio before we found LC. My statment is more representative of the members here on this forum than yours is. "If we'd only eat less we wouldnt be so fat"? Unfortunately that's just not the case. I eat more now than I ever did. More fat, more protein and less carbs. I have less body fat and more lean mass. My blood pressure is now low. My cholesterol levels are to die for, no pun intended. I have a metabolism now.

The idea that we all got fat because we ate too much doesnt wash with us - we've all heard that, usually while we slowly starved ourselves.

No one is disputing that eating 5000 calories a day wont lead to fat loss. At least now I can 3500 calories a day and not gain weight; I can also eat 2000 a day and LOSE fat.

Nat

I hope Dr. Barry sticks around...he could be a great source for us!

I personally don't think grammer or spelling is of any importance to the issue at hand. Your problem is reliance on heresay and what notes you've taken from a professor or a colleague? That does not constitute a scientific proof to your claims.

There are numerous clinical and scientific studies on the merits of low-carbing (check our reasearch and studies section from the menu above).

You can't blame someone for following scientific studies, instead of some notes you wrote on a textbook you no longer have, and maybe misunderstood. Demanding facts should not be threatening to anyone.

Any way, if you ever find some studies in support of you arguments, you are always welcome to post them here.

Wa'il

helloTigerLB55,

We have had this debate before, and members have questioned about fat loss due to low carbs vs. low calorie. You might be interested to read this thread ...What Do you consider to be slow?, there's a lot of information. You are welcome to post additional comments or questions there if you have any.

Doreen

There notes taken directly from my text i just sold my book the other day

Good for you. One thing to keep in mind while studying, text books present a lot of information in condensed format, and invariably lacks many details, and the latest research on specific topics.

To formalize an opinion on important health issues, it is best to venture out a bit beyond textbook basics, and delve into research papers and scientific studies.

Wa'il