Hmmm... I wonder how difficult it is to get into one of those calorie metabolism chamber things.

well of course calories count. but there are other factors to consider, and i think anthony, uncharacteristically, seems to forget these factors.

while calories count, the macronutrient source of those calories is important. not only is a low-carb diet more satiating, but it also raises energy output without the addition of extra exercise. hasn't anthony heard of protein turnover or the greater thermogenic effect of low-carb diets? in other words, a calorie is not a calorie (in terms of energy intake and use) and low-carb diets increase energy output because the calories consumed are less effeciently utilized than those consumed on a high-carb/low-fat diet. therefore, instead of comparing apples and oranges (1000 calorie below basal metabolism high-carb diet to a 1000 calorie above basal metabolism low-carb diet), as anthony recommends, we should compare high-carb to low-carb isocaloric diets that meet basal metabolic requirements and see if one creates greater weight loss or gain. i think we all know what the outcome will be.

so, calories do count but they aren't equal. i think anthony was trying get a point across and in doing so has overstated his case.

oh, and i also forgot that continued consumption of a high-carb diet often leads to hyperinsulinemia, which puts the body into a fat-building, or energy-storing, state, as opposed to a muscle-sparing, fat-burning, state.

As Anthony has taken the time to praise my modest contribution to this debate (a quite unsolicited but welcome comment I can assure you!) perhaps I can say something on his behalf?

You don't have to look very far into his excellent and extensive web site which is certainly one of the best researched and referenced on the web in strong support of a controlled carb way of life, to realise Anthony Colpo is well aware of the differing effects which result from changing the macronutrient ratios of dietary intake. Perhaps this example (one of many) will convince you;

http://www.theomnivore.com/August_2...newsletter.html ("A calorie is NOT a calorie")

His latest newsletter does not address these issues because it was specifically addressed to a question about whether calories should count on a low carb diet ... at all.

All he is saying (I think) is that while on a low carb diet you may not need to count calories (as Atkins says) - because calorie intake will likely drop due to the greater satiety of eating in this way - that is NOT to say calories are irrelevant, and a large part of the successful weight loss phase of low carb is this as a result of this effect. This is not a criticism, far from it - in fact you can only imagine how much money a pharmaceutical company would make if they produced a pill which would make you eat less without hunger (as low carb does of course, without drugs).

If you take the trouble to read the post of mine to which he refers, you will note that I went on to make the point that for many on low carb this calorie/portion size adjustment is a two stage process - the first being the initial 'automatic' reduction brought about by appetite suppression effects of the diet itself. The second, is where many people struggle a bit (including me) because it is a behavioral change which is made more on the basis of logic rather than hunger reduction - and this is the realisation that if you have lost a substantial amount of weight your lowered BMR (as a result of not carrying around that extra weight 24/7) requires a further increase in exercise or reduction in calories/portion size (or both) to compensate.

Cheers,

Malcolm

malcolm, i did read your post and i agree. i too am a big fan of anthony's and was a little surprized that he went so far to point out the balancing of energy input/output and forgot to mention that low-carb diets increase energy output without added exercise. it probably was an oversight, but i got the sense he was trying too hard to make his point and left out some of the pertinent factors, perhaps in an attempt to bolster his agrument.

in reading the thread that started this topic, i felt that most of those who posted said that they didn't need to worry about calories (not that they're irrelevant), because low-carb diets usually lead to spontaneous reductions in caloric intake.

ok, i've pinpointed the issue i have with anthony's defense of counting calories:

let's say my bmr is 2000 calories. if i ate an "excess" of calories on a low-carb diet (let's say, 2100 calories), i absolutely believe that i could lose more weight than if i ate a 1900-calorie low-fat diet. not only do i believe it, but there has been quite a bit of research that would support such a claim.

if anthony had looked at the feinman and fine study that he referenced in the link you provided, he would have seen that participants in kekwick's study who consumed a hypocaloric, high-carb diet (1000kcal, 90% CHO) lost NO weight, whereas participants on hypocaloric, high-fat and high-protein diets lost .26kg and .46kg per day respectively. also, participants in sondike's study who consumed a 1100-calorie 56/12/32 (CHO/fat/protein) diet lost only 4.1kg over 12 weeks, but those on a 1830-calorie 8/60/32 diet lost 9.9kg over the same period.

the evidence seems pretty clear. but what do i know, i'm misguided and deluded.

One of the problems with the calorie counting philosophy of weight loss is that a calorie is a unit of energy, not mass. While a pound of fat contains approximately 3500 Calories of energy, to use 3500 Calories as a measure of weight gain or loss is misleading. On low carb, some of the energy contained in the fat is in the form of ketones. These may be eliminated from the body without being used for energy.

How about if I eat 3500 Calories worth of protein? While a gram of protein may contain 4 Calories of energy, the body prefers to use protein for building muscle and other tissues and is inefficient in extacting energy from it. For instance here is a quote from The Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism of the American Heart Association

Another problem with calorie counting is the huge unknown of energy expenditure. Depending upon what source I use, I can get up to a 50% difference in how many calories that my body allegedly burns every day. Unless I know accurately how many calories my body burns each day, it is meaningless to count all calories in the food that I eat.

Even if I could accurately know how many calories went into my mouth and how many calories I used, I would still have to know how many calories passed thorough my body as fecal material. That is something that I am not going to count!

you're right dodger, it is next to impossible to accurately measure exactly what your body burns or excretes on any particular day. even if we keep our energy expenditures identical, there are going to be "hidden" losses of energy and mass that vary due to the macronutrient content of our diets and fecal matter, sweat, urine, etc.

I think what Anthony meant by that statement is that if your energy output is, say, 2,000 calories, then you *must* eat less than 2,000 calories (your total energy expenditure) in order for weight loss to incur, irrespective of whether the 2,000 calories are made up of low or high carb.

That even with a low carb diet, it is impossible to lose weight by taking in 3,000 calories of low carb fare while only using 2,000.

If you were to lose weight on 2,000 calories, then it must mean you are expending more than 2,000 per day. In that case, I think we'd all agree a low carb eating regimen would be more effective than a high carb one.

For instance, let's say I use 2,000 cals per day. If I eat low carb of 1,800 cals per day, I'd lose more weight than if I had eaten the same amound on high carbs, right? However, let us assume I chose to eat 3,000 cals in low carb? What's the difference then? I'll gain less weight than if I had eaten high carbs, but I would gain nonetheless since I'm taking in far more than I'm expending.

ok, but what do we mean by energy output? does energy output include the extra energy costs of consuming a low-carb diet? if so, than yes, you and he are right. but he seemed to imply that the only way to raise energy output is to exercise more, which i don't agree with.

How do you figure that? I've seen research that shows the calorie loss in ketosis is pretty inconsequential.

I'd love to know which macronutrient I can eat and waste 50% of because so far it isn't been carbs, fat or protein.

Perhaps not deluded, but certainly nit picking!

As I am sure you are aware being a "big fan" of Anthony's site, you were most likely alerted to studies such as referenced by Richard Feinman, showing the relative inefficency of the macronutrient ratio of a typical low carb diet ... by Anthony himself! (perhaps amongst other sources). That is not the issue here, as the sentence following the one you quoted points out;

I think you will agree that none of the quoted of the studies indicate that this has occurred.

Anthony also agrees that for most people (although certainly not all) "low-carb diets usually lead to spontaneous reductions in caloric intake". But the point is that this reduction, if it occurs, may not be sufficient for dieters to reach their goal weight given the inevitable drop in BMR that substantial weight loss dictates. And that is why anyone who claims they no longer need have any concern about the amount they eat, because Atkins (or anyone else) says so, may well be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Cheers,

Malcolm

Nancy,
I was referring to the various charts and equtions used to determine basel metabolism and exercise caloric expenditure. As far as macronutients that waste 50%, there is always fiber, which wastes 100%.

I found that I did, and do, have that reduction in appetite following low carb. I think it is a side-effect of ketosis, and lack of insulin wreaking havoc with blood sugar. However, it seems like it gets less over time. Your body adjusts to the change and the appetite can come back quite nicely.



Whoops! Sorry, misread that.