Atkins and all the low-carb diets are simply low calorie diets. It is absolutely fact that the Atkins diet reduces one's appetite. How difficult is it to see that when we eat less we lose weight? Carbs and fruit are not the enemy, reduced activity and excess calories are the problems in America today. More to come.

I had to raise my calories to 2400 to start losing again.

On low fat... I would have gained. So your theory doesn't work with low carbing.

Sorry...

I think you answered your own statement.

LC does reduce your appetite, as you say. You can fill up on lC foods, and have a modest calorie intake.

The problem is, when you fill up on a similar calorie, Carb heavy foods, I, like many if not all here, end up feeling like they are starving, thus they eat more, more calories, more hunger....

Sorry, your nicely reworded, but standard statment that people are obese because they are lazy and gorge themselves doesn't tell the whole picture. Do a root cause analysis of why, then come back and ask some questions.

Well of course! Nothing of this is much of a surprise. Atkins also cautions about consuming too many calories. Some people get more of a metabolic advantage and can consume more calories than others. I think it's a YMMV thing.

Re: "excess calories". You miss the big picture. The big picture is that unstable blood sugars cause overeating. It's not the other way around.

"Carbs and fruit are not the enemy". Change those words to "unprocessed, high-fiber carbs and fruit" and I'd say, "no argument there". Many can do this and lose significant amounts of weight. Furthermore, everyone maintains weight on these foods. The enemy is the white, processed carbs. Would anyone argue that as untrue? Except for the USDA, of course.

Be careful about making generalizations, including generalizations about LC. There are lots of LC plans out there, some using higher carbs than others. Also, not everyone is the same. Lots of people with stable blood sugars can lose weight just by eating low fat or restricting calories or simply exercising. But if blood sugars are the problem, LC is the answer.

Wanda

You might find this study interesting.

Reference:
Kasper, H., Thiel, H., Ehl, M., "Response of Body Weight to a Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet in Normal and Obese Subjects," The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 26, 1973, pages 197-204.

Summary:
The object of this study was to analyze the relationship between carbohydrate and fat as it pertains to regulation of body weight. Five volunteers were fed a formula diet comprised of 168 grams of carbohydrate, 64 grams of protein and 39 grams of fat for 45 days. Every five days, the amount of fat in the diet was increased via ingestion of either corn oil or olive oil. Researchers noted that the body could use up to 600 grams of fat daily, and this utilization was not compromised in any form, meaning individuals experienced increases in thermogenisis. At daily intakes of 300 to 400 grams of fat, subjects reported feeling warm all over and had an increased tendency to sweat. The individuals consuming the olive oil experienced an average weight gain of 20 pounds. Individuals consuming corn oil, although ingesting approximately 6,000 calories per day, experienced a decrease in weight. Researchers postulated that this discrepancy was due to the corn oil containing more of a particular essential fatty acid (linoleic acid). Based on the results obtained from this pilot study, the researchers placed 25 obese subjects on one of five diets varying in caloric value and ranging from low-fat/high-carbohydrate to high-fat/low-carbohydrate. All diets were supplemented with either corn oil or olive oil. Individuals consuming a low-fat, 855-calorie diet lost an average of 1.1 pounds daily while individuals consuming a low-fat, 1,006-calorie diet lost an average of 0.57 pounds daily. By comparison, the low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet group eating 1,707 calories lost 0.66 pounds daily while those eating 2,150 calories lost 0.70 pounds daily, regardless of whether they ate corn oil or olive oil. Eating less did not significantly alter weight loss in the low-carbohydrate groups. Researchers believed that this was a result of an increased energy output in the higher calorie group released by the body in the form of heat. Researchers also concluded that the weight loss was not water loss due to the length of the study and the total amount of weight loss achieved.

You might wish to note that those who were eating low carb consumed 700-1100 more calories than the low fat group and still lost more weight.

This one too: Please note that those that ate the most calories also lost the most weight by a good amount.

Summary:
This study tested whether a low-carbohydrate diet that did not restrict calories would be more successful in promoting weight loss than a low-fat, low-calorie diet. Researchers also tested to see if such a diet would have negative effects on blood lipid profiles, thus increasing cardiovascular risk. To test their hypothesis, they recruited 39 obese adolescents for the study; 20 were placed in a low-carbohydrate diet group while 19 were placed in a low-fat diet group. Subjects in the low-carbohydrate group were allowed to consume as much protein and fat as they wanted, so long as carbohydrate intake remained below 20 grams for the first two weeks and below 40 grams for the next nine weeks. Members of the low-fat group were instructed to consume fewer than 40 grams of fat per day. The low carbohydrate group participants consumed an average of 1,830 calories per day while those in the low-fat group consumed 1,100 calories per day. Both groups showed improvement in HDL ("good") cholesterol, triglycerides and total cholesterol. The improvement in triglycerides was much more pronounced in the low-carbohydrate group. Eating 700 more calories per day than the low-fat group, the low-carbohydrate group lost twice as much weight (an average loss of 48 pounds for the low-carbohydrate group versus an average of 20 pounds for the low-fat group). Neither diet had any effect on liver or kidney function. The researchers concluded that the low-carbohydrate diet significantly improved weight loss despite a higher caloric intake. Also, contrary to their hypothesis, despite increased fat intake, the cardiovascular risk profile did not worsen, but in fact improved in certain aspects including HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

I'm not arguing that you don't have to restrict calories to lose weight, but if I had a choice between restricting them to 1,800 calories a day and losing weight or restricting them to 1,100 calories to lose weight (and lowering my metabolism in the process), it's not a difficult choice to make now is it?

Any diet, in order to be effective, must in actuality, reduce caloric intake. Atkins does it in a smooth and less painful way, but his book is replete with statements about eating less and reducing food volume as you progress. He does maintain, and it seems true, that his plan provides a caloric advantage over the high carb/low fat diets. But to lose weight one must fall consistently below that "advantage" in caloric volume, to lose weight. He makes it quite clear on page 143 of the 2002 edition.

But that does not negate the excellent results obtainable with Atkins as long as one does not come away from reading the book with the misconception that there are no caloric limits to the diet. There are definitely limits. Atkins states that one can BEGIN to lose weight on as many as 2000 calories daily. But he also implies in various places that we must diminish our food volume. The caloric advantage of Atkins provides some extension of caloric intake but it does not negate it. The diet is actually a clever and effective way to reduce ones food/caloric volumes as the plan progresses. I enjoy it thoroughly.

Well, it IS a reduced calorie diet! I mean, I USED to eat over 6000 calories a day on a low fat diet, because I was always starving! Now I eat 2500-3000, a reduced calorie total, and I'm healthier and losing fat!

By simply eliminating or reducing consumption of refined flours, starches, sugars and grains, one will reduce calories automatically. By increasing intake of protein and fat, the body will feel full much faster and stay that way for much longer. So, you end up eating far less than when eating high carb foods. A LC meal is very satisfying. So much so that I don't even think about food if I happen to be busy. HC meals tend to be full of empty calories that, while satisfying for a few minutes, leads to hunger within a short period. Rice is a good example.

Further, it takes far more processing by the colon to digest protein than carbs or fat. Therefore, by eating lean proteins you are, in fact, enhancing your fat burning process even further. It simply takes more calories to digest protein than it does fat or carbs.

For this fact alone you can eat more calories in protein than you can carbs. The protein isn't stored as fat (except under extreme conditions).

That doesn't mean you would eat more calories than a 'normal' diet (which I use loosely). And yes, you are still eating lower volumes of food and lower calories.
I personally don't count calories. I eat enough until I'm just barely full. Which takes a lot less than it did with a HC diet.

As far as carbs and fruit 'being the enemy', they aren't an enemy. They are just way overused in commercial foods. You pick up any food on any store shelf and you count the carbs on the package. I don't mean look at the nutrition label either. I mean, actually read the ingredients and decipher what is a carb and what isn't. You'll find the descrepancy between the nutrition label and the real ingredients to be 'the enemy'.

Since you can't trust labeling, you have to take control of the carbs yourself. THIS is why Atkins (and other low carb plans exist). To allow us to control our own carb intake based on intelligent food choices. Not by starving and being miserable all the time trying to 'work' the 'normal' HC diet based on false labels and bad advice.

Take care.

A calorie is the measurment of how many BTU's an item can produce when heated to it's combustable point. Caloric studies came along when doctors thought our bodies worked like furnaces. Of course, this is complete bunk. It is my opinion that worrying about calories now, is more bunk.

Cardboard has tons of calories in it, but if that is your diet, skip the t, you'll just die. You'd take in thousands upon thousands of calories, and with nothing but malnutrition to show for it.

It's very easy to dismiss the benefits of low carb eating, until you feel the advantages for yourself. Open your mind.

My thought is so what it reduces my calories??
I am not uncomfortable. I don't starve. I am not sitting there only thinking about the chocolate and cake I can't have even when on a low fat/high carb diet.
On the low fat/high carb thing..they are all I can think about.
On this... eh??
Nedra

I agree with Poofie. So what? I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that low carbing doesn't reduce your caloric intake, but the beauty of it is that you can actually eat more on low carb than you can on low fat and still lose more weight (see the studies above). It also keeps your blood sugar much more stable and your insulin production in check so you aren't having wild blood sugar swings that only serve to make you hungrier.
Keeping your insulin prouduction low also prevents your body from wanting to store everything you eat as fat even if you are practically starving yourself. Lots of insulin in the bloodstream tells your body "there's an excess..store it for later" even if the calories coming in are deficient.
My DH was really amazed when he started low carbing that he could actually lose weight and not be hungry all the time. Every other diet he had tried left him feeling hungry and thinking about when the next meal was coming.

Yes, low carbing reduces your caloric intake...but that is a plus according to your original statement...if we all over eat and are lazy, you must agree that lowcarbing is the answer, we eat less and feel full...which spurs many who never exercised at all to get excited about weight loss and get out and move...so what's the point?

Gail

I can say that when I was following WW many years ago when it was just starting low protien, low fat, but was still somewhat lowercarb too, the only vitamins that I had enough of in any way shape or form was Vit A, because I ate lots of veggies, and Vitamin C. I didn't get enough of anything else because of so many being fat soluble, and found in red meats which were limited. Is that a way to live, I don't think so. I know my intake because of taking a nutrition class I had to do dietary analysis on what I was eating. Now I get enough of the essential's to live. One other Low Fat high carb plan I followed, stressed the need to eat over 2000 calories a day or the body goes into starvation mode. I gained weight everytime I tried a low calorie plan. Do you know how many patients gain weight when they are only getting nutrition from IV's. They are mostly sugar, even when other nutrients are added. They gain weight with ensure, which again is not in balance as much as they would like to say it is. If low calorie is to loose weight they would because trust me, they barely get minimal calories by these methods. Eventually, they might loose, but by then they are wasting away, using up all the building blocks in the body. For me this WOE, is not about calorie intake, but about healing my body. It takes time, I'm a slow loser, but I would rather lose slow, and do what I need to maintain and regain my health, I was getting sicker and sicker everyday, I was afraid I was turning into my mother in law that has so many problems that I needed to be proactive in stopping the degeneration of my health. I very much doubt I am cutting calories. I eat when I'm hungry, I work out hard, and beyond than I really don't care what my intake happens to be that day.
tanya

When I was just LCing (the first 8 or 9 pounds), I was hitting around 1800 to 2000 calories a day.

Now I'm LCing and weight training heavily. Pounds are not moving, but inches are still shrinking (i.e...I'm gaining lean mass while still shedding fat at the same time). Now I average about 2300 calories a day, forcing myself to eat 6 times a day.

On low fat, I had to drop to 1000 calories a day to lose at this same rate.

So, yes. I can deny that it is a calorie reduction diet.
EASILY.

-- Loretta

I absolutely think this is a low-calorie diet - at least for me. I think a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, and am only able to lose weight by taking in under 1500 calories. (Even with regular exercise) The key is, I CAN eat 1500 or so calories and not grip my head all day, thinking about food.

I did Zone years ago, and lost 35lbs forever. At that higher weight, I was able to lose it all by eating about 1800 low-carb calories a day. If only 1800 was still my weight loss number! But once I hit my goal weight - which will no doubt take a few more months (I lose fat at snail speed) - I will probably stick around the 1800 mark as my maintenance area. (Unless of course, I start running ten marathons a year! Not!)