In DANDR, he talks about the metabolic advantage, and alludes to the idea of decreased calories accelerating weight loss.

Many on the board are convinced you have to maintain a fairly high caloric intake to avoid the "starvation response".

Personally, I find I have to be pretty mindful to keep my calories in check, or I don't lose.

Where do YOU sit?

I also have to keep an eye on my calories. I eat between 1100-1600 per day and if I go over this I will not lose. I have been worried about starvation mode, so I have been looking everywhere for information. I found one site that most accurately matches what my scales say my BF% is - http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html and from there I go to http://www.hussman.org/fitness/bmrcalc.htm to determine my BMR and it also tells me how many calories I should eat per day to lose fat or gain muscle. These two sites are right on the money for me since I have eaten this range of calories since starting LC, and if I eat over 1600 calories , I do *not* lose. I don't gain, but I don't lose.

Alas...I do believe it is so. Some of us unlucky ones do have to watch calories. I sat at 165-168 pounds for a full 5 months even though I work out 6 days a week for a minimum of 1 1/2 hours a day. The good news about that was that I didn't GAIN any weight. I was eating between 1800 and 2200 calories a day.

Monday I restarted induction, (things I had to cut to go back to induction -- 1/2 and 1/2, coffee, my one glass of wine per week, peanut butter and NUTS.)

The good news about all that is I am now down to 162. I have been putting every morsel into Fitday. I am now averaging between 1,000 and 1,400. I plan on staying on induction AT LEAST until I get down to 150.

hth

Karen

OK, I have an intrest in this and here is my 2 cents!

I do still believe in calorie in equaling calories out. What I object to is the focus placed only on the 'calorie in' part, with the tacit assumption that calories out is pretty much constant, with a bit of range for extra exercising.

From my reading and experience I believe that calories out will vary based on a number of factors.
* Exercise - it isn't the calories you burn during the exercise that is signifigant, it is the change it makes to your burning rate more generally.
* muscle/body fat compositoin - we all know this, but it is a SEPERATE EFFECT from that noted above
* sources of (macro)nutrients
- Atkins gives an advantages becuase eating fat and low carbs increases your calories out, not just becuase it tends to reduce calories in. This is why on that study low-carbers could have 300 cals more and lose the same amount of weight.
- I do think that for many the source of extra calories is signifigant. Extra cals from low-carb bars are more likely to upset the balance, then extra cals from other sources that may compensate by increasing calories out. Studies have shown this to be the case with extra calories from moderate nut serves - in the study those with extra calories from nuts maintained weight while those with extra calories from other sources gained.
*The digestive function/ how much stuff your insides are doing
- while 'negative calorie foods' are a bit of a myth, this is the reason studies on the importance of breakfast give. If calories in was the only variable eating an extra 400 calories at breakfast wouldn't do any favours. However, it has been consistently shown that eating earlier increases calories out by speeding metabolism - dieters that eat breakfast lose more even if they eat more calories.

* Your body's response system
- Yes, I think there is ample evidence, both in scientific journals and ancedotal on this site, to support the starvation mode theory.

I think you play with fire lowering calories too much for too long. I admit, I have played in that fire. In the end you need to think if eating 1200 calories is sustainable for the rest of your life, and if it is healthy to be sustaining that.

It is very difficult to get all the vitamins and minerals you NEED at 1200 calories (less then 1800-2000 I would say) at low carb OWL/pre-maintence. Sure, you can rely on your "insurance" of multivitamin just as those who stay on induction for long periods must do -- but I wouldn't want to be stuck at a low level of calories for ever having ****ed up my metabolism.

People who can't go over a fairly low amount of cals without gaining I would consider
* Do I have a history of severe low-calorie dieting and that might be why?
* What am I doing when i go over set number? Extra calories from some macadamias or lower carb yogurt (for those that are in OWL) may be less hurtful then from low carb junk food.

ANd my final 2 cents. I think that 10-12X figure doesn't work as well the further down the scale. During induction, I found 1700-2000 calories a useful guide. Now, I consider 1200-1300 calories a complete joke, and completely unneccessary and unhealthy.

Hey mb99--
I really appreciated your lengthy and informative post, but not your "French". Please refrain.

Peach

Sorry...!

I put it down to the passion of the topic, a tedency towards spoken english on discussion forums, and probably a different conception of what is acceptable 'spoken' due to cultural differences.

But remember, "French" is just language to those from France!! So apologies given, but obviously I was caught a little unwares at the offence caused.

Believe it or not, I am eating more now than I have in *many* years. A typical day for me pre-LC was: a glass of ovaltine and either 3-4 slices of cheese pizza or beef tips with a baked potato. That was it. I never ate breakfast or lunch. I was not on any diet plan - I just did not get hungry. Granted, this *was* low cal, and I did feel crappy all the time, but the calorie range I stay in now is a big step up from those days. I eat 3 meals a day now and I feel great. I believe I have had more vegetables since starting Atkins than I've had in my entire life, and I do not eat frankenfoods. Ever. I am also never hungry (except for around TOM) and I know that once you are no longer in the weight loss phases and no longer "protected" by ketosis that hunger pangs reappear. I am going to gradually increase my calories so that when I get to that point, I will have more wiggle room. For now though, this is what works for *me*.

Hey there 2muchpizza! It really sounds like you have done a fantatic thing for your health by doing low carb! And I am not suprised by your experience - that low calorie eating for so long has slowed you right down. Good luck with the gradual increase of calories, sounds like a good move.

One book that has really helped me recently, since getting close to goal, is called 'the diet cure'. If, closer to goal, you start to suffer hunger pangs but are afraid of raising your calories I would strongly reccomend reading it and giving the strategies in it for raising calories a bash!

For now though, it sounds like like switching pizza for vegies and meat is doing fine!

I have to watch my calories as well in order to lose. I also belive though there is such thing as eating way too few. While it may or may not be 10x current weight, some people only get 700-900 a day and that is just way to low. I prefer to try and keep it around 1200-1300 when I'm watching.

Anymore I'm taking a rbeak form watching things though and just eating LC. I'm not losing as if I was watching, but I'm also not taking all that time out of my day and stressing food as much.

I believe that the "eat less/move more" maxim for weight loss is just like the "buy low/sell high" advice for making money in the stock market. They're both absolutely true and both absolutely inadequate at the same time! How low is low enough and how high is high enough? I agree with mb99 that the ratio of macronutrients is as important as the number of cals.

The 10x body weight rule for me puts me at 1200 calories a day, and if I get down to my goal, it would set me lower still. But I am 50 years old, in menopause, and I have a desk job. I don't think 1000-1200 is ever going to equal starvation for me. Lots of studies show, as well, that lower calories levels slow much of the aging process. But exercising and controlling the ratio of fat/protein/carbs keeps me out of starvation mode and comfortable, although I lose very, very slowly. I have essentially eliminated ALL refined carbs except those found in salad dressing.

By the way, 2muchpizza, I haven't read The Diet Cure (I may, it sounds interesting), but I have been on the Insulin Resistance Diet which doesn't go low enough in carbs to put me into ketosis at all, and I NEVER have hunger pangs or cravings, even at 1200-1500 cals per day. IR recommends that you always have at least 1 gram of protein for every 2 grams of carbs you eat and never eat more than 30 grams of carbs in any two-hour window. This keeps the blood sugar on a low, even keel and prevents the insulin spikes that lead to hunger pangs. That may not be the exact solution for you, but I bet you'll find a strategy that is. You don't have to stay in ketosis in order to avoid hunger.

BTW, mb99, I just noticed that you are also a 5'0" woman and that we have the same goal weight. But I am guessing that you are about half my age, since you're in law school, right? Don't forget to factor in age in that BMR equation! Believe me, things change at the mid-century mark! Not all bad changes, mind you, but not all good, either.

All: My husband (a nurse, and a darn good one) told me that 1200 calories is the starvation mode threshold. Of course, he only mentioned that to me after I started using Fitday and found that my caloric intake had been around 1000 per day. Needless to say, I had been stalled for a while.

Absolutely, calories count, but it's not as simple as 1-2-3. I have to keep my cals up in the 1400-1600 range at least, or I don't lose. And since I started to work out this week (yay me!), I may need to readjust my intake even more. I think that people with a natural tendency to take in more calories may have to watch that they don't take in too many; that's just not my problem.

IMO, yes, calories matter, but not like they do in high carb. In high carb, calories matter a heck of a lot more, I think.

Here, because of ketosis, we're peeing out all sorts of excess calories in the form of ketones. That amounts to (I read somewhere on this board) up to 300 calories a day. Could be none, too, but potentially some calories are being wasted every day. Sounds like a bit of a metabolic advantage to me.

mb99 - that was very well said. It also may help to argue those who argue against Atkins with logic and calories - there are several threads in the war zone. It is nice when people start commenting on your weight loss, but I often end up in discussions about the merits or crazyness/fadness of Atkins and SBD with intelligent people. Your argument to not forget the calories out, and that exercise isn't the only way to increase the "calories out" is right on the ball! Thanks!

<<It is very difficult to get all the vitamins and minerals you NEED at 1200 calories (less then 1800-2000 I would say) at low carb OWL/pre-maintence. Sure, you can rely on your "insurance" of multivitamin just as those who stay on induction for long periods must do -- but I wouldn't want to be stuck at a low level of calories for ever having ****ed up my metabolism.>>

Believe me, I would rather not have to eat between 1,000 and 1,400 calories to loose weight. I went 5 solid months without loosing a pound. During that time I exercise (calories out) a MINIMUM of 1 1/2 hours of circuit training 4 days a week and a MINIMUM of 1 1/2 hours of weight training 3 days a week. I steadily increased this exercise over the 5 month period. I only deviated from the Atkins plan 2 days and then it was a piece of pie one day and some chips another day.

<<What am I doing when i go over set number? Extra calories from some macadamias or lower carb yogurt (for those that are in OWL) may be less hurtful then from low carb junk food.>>

I am not talking about nuts being harmful and I eat no low carb junk food. I am simply saying that I believe the high caloric content of nuts prevents me from loosing weight. I will reincorporate nuts when I get to maintenance.

<<ANd my final 2 cents. I think that 10-12X figure doesn't work as well the further down the scale. During induction, I found 1700-2000 calories a useful guide. Now, I consider 1200-1300 calories a complete joke, and completely unneccessary and unhealthy.>>

Since my return to induction I am still eating whenever I feel hungry. I am eating as much as I want until satisfied. I am not "controlling" my calories...it just so happens that true induction for me EQUALS less calories.

In the end, after working within the guidelines of Atkins which I truly believe in and will stick with for the rest of my life, the evidence points to a reduction in calories is the only thing that will enable me to loose weight. Now, it may be that there is something about 1/2 and 1/2, nuts, and peanut butter that chemically causes me to stall. I am still working on finding that balance that will work for me.