I'm really interested in hearing other people's view on this topic. Personally, I believe and have the results to prove that calories are primary in losing weight, and diet composition (how much fat, carbs, protein, etc.) simply refines this process; however, it is not above this energy balance equation.

So, what's your take?

i found that after you drop your initial water weight on atkins... it becomes a low calorie diet but not on purpose for the sole fact that your just not hungry when your in ketosis so surprise surprise... that result is weight loss... many try and tweak it to what they say works (high fat, loower carb, low fat high protein) but regardless it looks like it is less calories consumed to feel full and however your body adjusts to that is how youll lose weight

I agree, but all I have is personal experience. Cutting calories alone doesn't work. I think it is a combination of tweaking fat intake, fiber, etc. and not going overboard with calorie intake.

I cut calories and fat, before I started this diet. I lost a wopping total of 4 lbs over the course of years. My calories were around 700-900 per day. Maybe my body felt like it was starving and was holding onto fat reserves. I kept doing it because I believed that fat makes people fat...go figure.

I started this diet and my calories have been more than my previous "low fat diet", but not out of control. I generally do about 1200-2000 per day. My fat intake is around 85 grams per day or more. My net carbs are 20-30 grams per day. I find after a particular high fat day, I end up losing some weight within a day or two, unless tom gets in the way.

I am on the atkins diet though. He believed that calories made a difference to an extent from what I understood.

For me, personally, at least at this point, fat seems to be the big indicator of how much I'll loose. Recently I dropped my carbs to induction level and increased my fat. Because of the increased fat my calories have gone up, from about 1200-1300 to 1500-1600 per day. I lost 2 pounds. This was after several weeks of barely loosing 1/2 - 1 pound a week.

I'm sure as I get closer to goal I'll have to watch calories, but for now they really don't seem to matter. The fat percentage seems much more important.

It just depends on your metabolism and your level of activity and your weight... and probably your gender. Oh yeah, I forgot age.

Nancy, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You just gave, and I know that you did this on purpose, the formula to figure out how many calories an individual needs to consume to stay at his or her current weight. However, and I'm going to go on record here , I lost the first 100lbs of my 130lbs without counting calories or being religious about it. I had a rough idea of how many calories I was eating, but I never wanted to bother with such a disciplined routine, so I thought at the time. I think the natural appetite suppressing effect of doing LC kicked in for me; however, I've read that this only works instantly for some people (~ 60%). I feel as though I was one of the lucky ones; nevertheless, I know of some people who are in ketosis and still have a rather healthy appetite, and it's not from exercising either. LOL!

I hit a wall at 215 because I was overfat, not overweight. I had more body fat (which I erroneously thought was all "loose skin") on me than I wanted because I wanted to look muscular. If your goal is to get lean and cut or have a six pack, you'll have to count calories AND workout because your body actually fights for the last stores of fat. And, trust me, it doesn't want to give them up easily. Right now, I'm eating roughly 2000-2500 calories a day with a carb intake of less than 75 grams. I've never counted my fat grams, interestingly enough. (Wow, I just realized this!). However, I'm burning more calories than OI'm consuming a day because I work out 5 days a week with my kettlebells--KBs rock! Let's just say that the old bod ain't too happy that I want to lose 2% more of its fat stores . . .

I think calories count for sure, but when you speak of 'diet composition' - I think there might be even more to it than that. For me, it's not just the percentages of fat, carbs and proteins - for some reason, I've actually noticed a difference when it comes to the type of food within each of those parameters.

I've had some recent success with increasing vegetable carbs, upping/changing the fat and eating fewer processed foods.

This means more olive oil, more fish, a lot more vegetables and even nuts and avocados occasionally.

It's almost as if you need to ask, "Well, what kind of carbs are you talking about? What kinds of fats?" etc.

That said - I would never be able to stick to a diet long enough to get the weight off if it weren't a low-carb eating plan. No way.

Yeah, I can go a whole week without food and still gain 5 lbs.

I lost 100 pds without counting calories, only carbs. That being said...my body with 120 or so less pds just needs less calories and I am watching them now to get to goal. So calories count for me the closer I get to target. Just makes sense that I need less than I did at 323. I have also upped fat to break my stall at 215 and it works so I am staying on high fat til I hit goal.

I hear you cherryred, and once I read Ellis's book, which talked about your body needing less calories (fuel) to move around a lighter body it all made perfectly good sense as to why I should count my calories. Also, since they have developed simple formulas that give us a good approximation of how many calories we are burning a day, it's not that difficult anymore, and the rewards are fabulous! Also cherryred, do you measure your body fat percentage? I'm asking because I went through a period where on the scale it showed maybe a 5lb weight difference, but I was losing body fat, which is the goal anyway. However, I was lifting weights and muscle weighs more than fat, so as I gained muscle and lost fat the scale didn't move like it did when I was over 300lbs. But, my clothes were falling off me and I could see the difference in the mirror. I'm just wondering if you have experienced the same thing . . . thanks.

I seemed to lose the fastest when I don't pay attention to calories, but keep a close eye on carbs and eat high fat, drink tons of water, and keep active. If I start to watch calories, I always, always, always end up cutting fat, so I feel full on meat and salads, but I stop losing. I ate way too many carbs yesterday, and out of curiosity stepped on the scale this morning. (I am one of those who judges by my clothes look and fit, not the number on the scale) and was surprised that I had lost another 3 pounds after a week. I guess the extra carbs won't hurt me as long as I get moving today!

I forgot to add a key ingredient to weight loss and that is either strength training or excercise. I think both are key. Also, upping activity levels in general.

Amber, I'm SOOO glad that you mentioned this because I know that a lot of women view strength training as something that only guys should do or women who want to look like them. Both are gross misconceptions that I think causes a lot of folks to have multiple plateaus. Ladies, I really encourage you to check out www.nofearfitness.com for a woman who teaches how to use kettlebells to build strength and burn fat. And, she doesn't look like a man either . . .

Personally, I haven't been on a treadmill or elliptical machine in years! Hell, I sold my elliptical machine a couple of months ago because I never used it. I love kettlebells because I can get both aerobic and anaerobic workouts from one iron ball with a handle. I recommend KB training highly for men and women, regardless if your goal is to just lose weight or to sculpt your bod.

3shewolf8, I was the exact same way for a good portion of my weight loss; however, I weigh myself everyday. Anyway, I didn't count calories, drank tons of aqua, and worked my butt off. This key ingredient, as Amber pointed out, is that we decided to not just cut carbs, but we decided to move dat body too. I think it's an awesome 1-2 punch to our unwanted body fat!

personally, i'm a little confused as to why you'd ask the question in the first place. this is a low-carb forum, not a low-calorie one, and it seems like you're trying to tell us that the only thing that matters in weight loss is the quantity of food you eat, not the quality.

if cutting calories works for you, then that's fine... but that's YOU. i can certainly testify to the fact that if all i do is cut the quantity of calories in intake and increase my calorie output, i gain weight. but if i alter the chemistry of the calories, my body responds.

losing weight safely is primarily about encouraging, even forcing, your body to burn off the fat stores it already has without turning to its own muscles for protein. the way to do that is to make sure fat is provided as a primary fuel source, with enough protein to rebuild muscle structure. and because fat has more energy per gram than protein or carb, calories increase while the body loses weight. now i agree that increasing lean muscle mass through exercise or weight training is INCREDIBLY beneficial... however at the moment, my schedule doesn't exactly allow for exercise on a regular basis.

if you want to put it into scientific terms, this is chemistry, not algebra. the output of the reaction is greater than the individual components.

case in point, yesterday i ate approximately 2200 calories. my BMR is around 1600, and my activity level probably put my total output around 2000 for the day. this morning i was down just over a pound from yesterday. algebraically, i had a 200 calorie surplus for the day but lost approximately 3500 calories. the math doesn't work, but the chemistry does. and no, it wasn't water weight.

this whole thread is sounding a little like proseltyzing toward low-calorie or at least calorie counting. i would rather concentrate on the quality of the food i eat, not the quantity. i eat until i'm satisfied of good meats, healthy fats, and low-carb veggies. that's good enough for me.

I haven't been measuring body fat but I do notice the same thing. I can weigh the same as I did but my clothes are looser, I am smaller which I am guessing is because I gained muscle. This is why I am concentrating more on getting to a certain size rather than my goal weight. Sure I still want to hit my goal but I am going to watch how I feel and what size I wear as I get there. If I can weigh more but be in smaller size, hey that is ok with me. I am not lifting weights, I do walk everyday and I am very active around the house. When that scale doesn't move and I just know I am behaving on my diet, I attribute that to gaining muscle. Isn't this great?