PDA

View Full Version : Low Carb VS Low Fat


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Vince3325
Wed, Aug-03-05, 08:37
I know to watch cals. on both. Im sure this will be one sided posted on this site, but what's the advantages and disadvantages of each, and witch is heather and witch produces the most fat loss.

KryssiMc
Wed, Aug-03-05, 14:57
I can't speak for anyone else, but, for me low carb with calorie counting was better. On the lowfat diet, I was thin, but with problem areas.

On low carb, I am thin and my body has so much more definition so it would seem that low carbing makes you lose more body fat than low fat.

Check out my before and after pictures to see the truth. My before pic is me at 122 lbs eating low fat...certainly not truly overweight. My after is 99 lbs after low carbing and eating till I was satisfied.

My body is just so much more healthy now...outside and in. That's the difference for me.

CindySue48
Wed, Aug-03-05, 19:13
For me LC is better for the way I feel as well as how I loose.

High carb intake causes my arthritis and stomach issues to flare up. I also have higher energy levels on LC than on LF.

As for loosing? I much prefer the foods allowed on LC over those on LF. I avoid processed foods and I think LC is easier there too.

CindySue48
Wed, Aug-03-05, 19:19
oh yea....i don't count calories on LC but record intake and usually run around 1800-2200 cal/day.

On LF I watched every calorie and couldn't loose unless I went below 1200cal/day.

potatofree
Wed, Aug-03-05, 21:04
On a low-carb site, are you really going to GET the pros of low-fat, high carb eating? Are there any?

LukeA
Thu, Aug-04-05, 00:20
On low fat I had health problems of all sorts, most all of which either entirely cleared up or got markedly better after low carbing. Both low carb and low fat made me thin (heck I got down to 130 pounds on low fat vegan eating!), but on low fat I was NEVER healthy. My doctors agree a thousand fold.

Rosebud
Thu, Aug-04-05, 00:31
I know to watch cals. on both. Im sure this will be one sided posted on this site, but what's the advantages and disadvantages of each, and witch is heather and witch produces the most fat loss.
Hi Vince,

I see by your profile that you have not yet done any reading on low carbing. I cannot stress enough just how important it is to do this.
For example, Dr Atkins' New Diet Revolution describes a famous experiment done in the fifties by Professor Kekwick and Dr Pawan. This clearly showed that subjects who ate high protein or high fat, lost weight where subjects who were fed the same number of calories, but with a high carbohydrate and low fat content, actually gained weight.
It is summarised here: http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-175782.html

Rosebud:rose:

ojoj
Thu, Aug-04-05, 02:49
Calories all work differently when ingested - I dont care what so called experts say, a calorie isnt just a calorie!

I can eat anything up to 3000 - 4000 calories a day on a low carb diet and have done since day one! I dont do any real exercise and although I'm fairly active, I'm not fanatical

I've lost 70lbs in weight and have maintained at around 126lbs for 18 months.

Most of my calories come mainly from fat, then protein and I stick to around 20 - 30gs of carbs a day!

It works for me, I'm very rarely hungry and dont really think about food much - which is the key for me. When I used to do low cal/low fat I would dream about food and be desperate to eat all day long - needless to say i failed and gained while following those kinda diets

Jo

MeBLady
Thu, Aug-04-05, 03:14
I know to watch cals. on both. Im sure this will be one sided posted on this site, but what's the advantages and disadvantages of each, and witch is heather and witch produces the most fat loss.

For me, a LC diet is both healthier and resulted in much greater weight loss than LF.

With LC, I feel I can eat more varied foods, I am never hungry, and I feel physically better. LF never gave me that. I like my veggies with butter, I like my salads with a lot of dressing....I'd rather not eat any veggies at all than be forced to eat them bland and plain the LF way -- and that was usually the case before I discovered this WOE.

I've lost more weight on LC than I have ever lost in my lifetime.

There is NO way that I would ever considered a low fat diet ever again. For me, it is an automatic failure and a miserable way to live.

TheCaveman
Thu, Aug-04-05, 08:13
If you need to count calories, you're doing something wrong.

Nancy LC
Thu, Aug-04-05, 09:45
You didn't mention whether the low-fat diet was high in carbs or not. It is possible to do low-carb, low-fat (and low calorie). I am doing that. Works great for weight loss for those of us who have very stubborn bodies.

lilacfairy
Thu, Aug-04-05, 11:10
Isn't it also possible to do moderate fat, moderate carb diet? Like not being afraid of fat (w/o going overboard), getting protein, & eating carbs (except the starchy or sugary ones)? As long as you keep the cals below a certain point & exercise, that's a pretty healthy diet. I thought that was one of the most recommended, healthy kinds of diets today. Lately, I haven't heard of any *truly* low-fat diets being recommended in most health publications, anyway.

Samuel
Thu, Aug-04-05, 11:35
Calories all work differently when ingested - I dont care what so called experts say, a calorie isnt just a calorie!

I can eat anything up to 3000 - 4000 calories a day on a low carb diet and have done since day one!


The key is that your body regulates its weight properly at the small amount of carb intake which you get. My body does the same and I have tested this ability several times. If I eat over 3000 calories one day, my body makes me less hungry the following days in order to force me to maintain the constant weight.

If we were normal, our bodies could have been able to maintain constant weights regardless to our carb intakes. But we have a special disorder which makes this feature unable to function properly unless we reduce our carb intakes to the amounts which we use for maintenance.

ojoj
Fri, Aug-05-05, 05:04
[QUOTE=Samuel]The key is that your body regulates its weight properly at the small amount of carb intake which you get. My body does the same and I have tested this ability several times. If I eat over 3000 calories one day, my body makes me less hungry the following days in order to force me to maintain the constant weight.

QUOTE]


WOW, Thats interesting, cos yes, I do find that if I eat a lot one day, then the next couple of days I really dont wanna eat much.

Thats the key for me with low carbing, food just isnt very important to me anymore, i eat to live not live to eat - thats how and why it works better for me than low fat/low cal - you need will power!

Jo

H20Goddess
Fri, Aug-05-05, 05:42
It is possible to do low-carb, low-fat (and low calorie). I am doing that.

Really? I've thought of doing that before, but didn't think it was possible. Do you have a sample of what your typical menu might look like? I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks. :)

KryssiMc
Fri, Aug-05-05, 08:26
If you need to count calories, you're doing something wrong.

Hey Mister...don't start that again! ;)

Some of us would like to get a little more cut than our bodies would like us to be. I wouldn't be happy settling for the 110 my body would want to be so I watched my calories.

It's about personal preference...and if it's personal, it can't be wrong because it's subjective.

ItsTheWooo
Fri, Aug-05-05, 09:40
I know to watch cals. on both. Im sure this will be one sided posted on this site, but what's the advantages and disadvantages of each, and witch is heather and witch produces the most fat loss.
An advantage for one person might be a disadvantage for another, so it's kinda hard to list all advangates and disadvantages.

Like, low fat's greater food variety might be an advantage for one person. It makes structured etaing more enjoyable. For another it might be a hindrance, because that person has impulse control problems with many foods, when not sticking to a core few basic foods (meat & veg).
LC's limited foods and basic black & white rules might help one person, who isn't much into food and just wants things simple and basic. For another, it's confining limiting and impossible to stick with long term.

Someone with poor sugar metabolism would do much better on LC, in spite of advice to eat generously from fat. They would actually lose weight, because eating less from carbs means their body's metabolism runs better and they have less eating impulses. For someone who hasn't the same sort of issues, it might not yield as dramatic results. This person would feel needlessly confined to fats and away from carbs for minimal benefit (in well being).

Some people feel energized on carbs. Others feel sluggish.
Some feel energized on extreme low carb. Others not.

It really depends on you, what works and what doesn't. With that said I'll list a few of the advantages and disadvantages of each plan trying my best to represent all people...

LC:

Ideal for sugar sensitive people.
Usually helpful if chronic hunger is your biggest issue with weight/eating
Usually helpful if eating high carbohydrate leaves you feeling ill in some way
Less emphasis on portion-control and choice-making, more abstinence-oriented. Ideal for "junk food addicts": people with impulse control problems with many foods (particularly sweet & starch food).
Less emphasis on conscious regulation of intake means less using external psychological override of physical impulse to produce weight loss. The diets work in spite of this because they are so limited and structured that over eating is unlikely or impossible.
Dieters learn what you eat, not just how much, is important for weight control. LF plans tend to focus on "calories", and not how those calories effect your body, in a way putting the cart before the horse. LC dieters have an advantage in that they usually know which foods to eat to feel satisfied & more easily lose weight, and which foods to avoid because they make them hungry & have trouble losing. LF dieters, focused only on calorie contents, are indifferent/ignoring how their bodies feel and respond to the foods they choose.
Weight loss is usually more impressive than a low fat approach. The body more easily becomes catabolic (metabolizing fat into fuel) when carbohydrates are restricted. You tend to burn more energy and naturally eat less food when blood sugar is stable and fats are consumed.
Weight loss is usually achieved with less or no hunger.
Ideal for particularly carb sensitive fat & meat "dinner" type eaters, non-emotional food eaters,, who can take or leave dessert & starches. Sweet/carb eaters, emotional eaters, and/or with moderate carb sensitivity do well initially, but may find it very needlessly limiting & therefore hard to commit to long term.



LF

Ideal for people with very low sugar sensitivity, particularly those who exercise frequently, who tend toward plain old bad eating habits.
Greater emphasis on portion control & user behavior with food: learning these lessons while losing weight makes maintenance much easier. It's more difficult to segue from LC diets to maintenance diets because LC diets are structured more like "a weight loss diet" in weight loss phases than LF diets are. You have an advantage in keeping weight off here.
More freedom to make choices, less absolute rules, less or no forbidden food. Psychologically easier to stick with for some dieters who abhor the deprived feeling of restrictions and absolutes.
LF diets are less often strict with absolutes & rules. It may make these sorts of diets more tolerable for people with disordered eating tendencies (a proportion of those with weight problems struggle with "food fears" and extremism with food that could be triggered by rigid LC dieting).
Easier to stick with long term for sweet & starch cravers with minimal sugar sensitivity. Less feeling of deprivation means less rebellious poor eating.
Easier to consciously manipulate calories & create a caloric deficit when very little fats are consumed. Many people on LC plans who are not that sugar sensitive (or alternately, people who for whatever reason don't feel satiety from high fat/lc) have a lot of trouble losing weight because they are eating so much more fat that their calories are too high to lose weight. My sister had this problem. If you feel the same satiety regardless of what you eat, reducing fat is probably a good option to help you lose weight as it means you will lower your calories while meal-volume stays the same.
Greater understanding is learned on the mechanics behind weight loss/gain. LF dieters are familiar with the concept of "calories" and "energy in/energy out". Many LC diets do not stress these points, doing a disservice to the dieter by misrepresenting how LC plans work (they are not magic; they just make it less LIKELY your body will ask for more food & store more energy - it is still possible to stall out or even gain from eating too much food). This yields an advantage for the LF dieters in weight loss as well as weight maintenance.
Psychological satisfaction sometimes breeds physical satisfaction. My sister over ate her LC diet because she missed her candies so much that she ate more fat than she wanted to compensate. If this sounds like something you might do, LC might not be for you and LF is a better fit.





Personally, I borrow the best from both types of plans.
From LC I borrow:
-emphasis on blood sugar & insulin control via selecting low carb, high protein, high fat foods... selecting high satiety foods... sticking to familiar core foods most of the time... making a rough mental structure (plan) for my eating in some way, so as to naturally limit energy consumption (i.e. just take half, just take an ounce, so on).
From LF I borrow
-emphasis on energy/calorie control... emphasis on user behavior with food... conscious manipulation/override of intake and impulse... lack of hard defined strict "absolute" rules and forbidden foods... indulging & treating myself often, denying myself nothing, so as to teach myself how to maintain weight and fit restricted eating into my lifestyle on a long term basis along with my natural human proclivity to eat for recreation.



There's no need to confine yourself to pure low fat or pure low carb methodologies. There are many "in between" plans (low glycemic, or simple portion control without paying attention to where cals are coming from). Bottom line, I don't think low fat works for anyone as well as other methods. Even if you are not that sugar sensitive, if you don't do well with "strict rules", if you hate meat & fat & protein, and therefore won't do well on low carb... odds are you won't do well on low fat, either, since almost no one does. You would be better off doing a moderate portion control approach than a low fat approach, since those diets typically borrow all the benefits of low fat without leaving you feeling as deprived, hungry, or finding it as difficult to shed pounds.

ItsTheWooo
Fri, Aug-05-05, 09:52
On a low-carb site, are you really going to GET the pros of low-fat, high carb eating? Are there any?
True.
The only pros I could think of were more closely related to the way such plans are structured, not to the virtues of swapping fat/pro for carbs. Any value of a low fat approach can usually be incorporated into a LC plan with greater results.

Like, you can eat low cal & count cals on LC, too, and usually lose weight more effectively than if you ate the same calories of LF.
You can treat yourself and make "choices" on LC, too, if you practice portion control & impulse control with foods, again, with a greater feeling of satisfaction and greater success than with low fat.

Honestly I can't think of a single advantage to replacing protein & fat with carb calories. It may make it easier to eat low cal, but that's hardly even true anymore with the numerous low carb - low cal foods out there (diet breads, pastas, low fat/low carb products like dairy and dressings, and let's not forget natures low carb & low cal bounty: veggies of all kinds).

ItsTheWooo
Fri, Aug-05-05, 10:03
If you need to count calories, you're doing something wrong.

Sometimes to get the aesthetic result we want, it means suppressing body fat levels by manipulating intake. This is particularly true for women since we tend to store more fat than men, yet society expects us to be thinner. It is twice as true for me as I have a history of morbid obesity, and a disproportionate number of fat cells in many areas of my body. If I ate unrestrained LC I would be heavier than I like, therefore I have chosen calorie control.

Just because, for you, this isn't about improving looks or avoiding the social repercussion of large size & appearance, doesn't mean these issues are unimportant period. It doesn't mean they're bad or a sign of a mental problem, either (nice little slogan). Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it wrong and you absolutely right.

Try being a teenage girl weighing over 250 pounds. Try being ostracized by all peers your entire life, being heckled by strangers on the street. Then tell me that we should all accept our bodies as they are naturally, and counting calories (to suppress a naturally high body fat level, and stay thin) is an eating disorder. If you had to experience this, and if you had the threat of that looming over you, do you think you would view becoming and staying thin a pointless, sick narcissistic vain obsession? Ideally we should all accept our bodies as they are, never judge people by appearances. But we can't and we do, unfortunately.

lilacfairy
Fri, Aug-05-05, 11:06
ItsTheWoo: Your posts are pretty informative! I've tried Atkins but can't do without carbs, it seems. But I also seem to do pretty badly with sugars and starches, so I do still want to avoid them. I don't have a huge amount to lose, but I'm also concerned about slowly gaining over time.

I eat healthy carbs like apples, brown rice, beans, lowfat milk, and oatmeal. I don't always have all of that in the same day, but would it be detrimental to eat them all & on the same day as a serving of peanut butter, coconut oil, and tahini? (I also have protein shakes and egg whites to up my protein intake.)

If I have a high percentage of the day's calories coming from good fat while still eating those carbs, does it really matter, as long as I'm under a certain amount of calories per day? Should I be worried about the percentage of fat in my diet, if the fat is mostly the good kind? (I also have protein shakes and egg whites to up my protein intake.)

ItsTheWooo
Fri, Aug-05-05, 12:07
ItsTheWoo: Your posts are pretty informative! I've tried Atkins but can't do without carbs, it seems. But I also seem to do pretty badly with sugars and starches, so I do still want to avoid them. I don't have a huge amount to lose, but I'm also concerned about slowly gaining over time.

I eat healthy carbs like apples, brown rice, beans, lowfat milk, and oatmeal. I don't always have all of that in the same day, but would it be detrimental to eat them all & on the same day as a serving of peanut butter, coconut oil, and tahini? (I also have protein shakes and egg whites to up my protein intake.)

If I have a high percentage of the day's calories coming from good fat while still eating those carbs, does it really matter, as long as I'm under a certain amount of calories per day? Should I be worried about the percentage of fat in my diet, if the fat is mostly the good kind? (I also have protein shakes and egg whites to up my protein intake.)

Hi,
In so far as pure fat loss is concerned, for me it is governed by two things:
-the lower the calories, the better
-the higher the percentage from fat and protein, the better.

The less you can eat, and the more frequently from fat & proteins, the more catabolic your body & greater deficit of energy results in maximum body fat lost. As long as you are watching your calories AND you're percentages, you'll be alright. If you fail to lose weight, assuming you're otherwise healthy and not showing any signs of poor health, reduce calories and/or carbs as necessary to produce steady losses.

A good way I've discovered to have a bit of carbs in my diet without sacrificing my goals is to reduce portions. Instead of a whole serving of oatmeal, I'll take a half portion and mix it with fibre. Oatmeal, nuts, and cottage cheese with a little sweetener, cinnamon, and a bit of butter & milk is actually pretty good. Instead of a whole apple, I have half or less with peanut butter. I cut diet bread slices in half to make two "thin slices" for my sandwich (regular sandwich: 160 cals worth of bread; my sandwich: 40 cals) You get the idea ;). You can eat these foods... you just don't need to eat ALL of it, by itself, and mess up your blood sugar.

mcsblues
Fri, Aug-05-05, 18:45
ItsTheWoo: Your posts are pretty informative! I've tried Atkins but can't do without carbs, it seems. But I also seem to do pretty badly with sugars and starches, so I do still want to avoid them. I don't have a huge amount to lose, but I'm also concerned about slowly gaining over time.

Tell us what you mean by "can't do without carbs" - does this mean you have been unable to control carb cravings, unable to get through the carb withdrawal of induction, or are you just adversely affected in some other way by eating 20cg carbs or less. There are a lot of plans which allow a higher initial carb allowance (such as PP) and you may well be more suited to something like that.

One thing you cannot do is high carb and high fat - so no, persentage of fat is not critical - but if you are eating high enough carbs and not creating an energy deficit then both will be stored as fat, and the high carbs will prevent you from accessing that stored energy.

The other thing you need to consider is this way of life is not just a weight loss plan - low carb has major health benefits that a low fat plan can never match.

Cheers,

Malcolm

KryssiMc
Sat, Aug-06-05, 07:38
Lilac...Malcolm is right, you don't have to stick to 20g or less...I didn't and lost just fine. What about starting at the OWL level of Atkins? Higher carbs and more food choices....or South Beach? They allow fruit and dairy.

And an apple is not a good example of a healthy carb. They are too high on the Glycemic Index...you'd be much better while you're losing if you ate berries or even some melon.

TheCaveman
Sat, Aug-06-05, 08:45
Sometimes to get the aesthetic result we want, it means suppressing body fat levels by manipulating intake. This is particularly true for women since we tend to store more fat than men, yet society expects us to be thinner. It is twice as true for me as I have a history of morbid obesity, and a disproportionate number of fat cells in many areas of my body.

Agreed.

If I ate unrestrained LC I would be heavier than I like, therefore I have chosen calorie control.

I assert that you've never eaten unrestrained low-carb for any serious period of time. If you've been at 20g carbohydrate for six months, I will kindly retract and apologise. If you've done it for a year, I will do the same and suggest you a trip to the endocrinologist.

Just because, for you, this isn't about improving looks or avoiding the social repercussion of large size & appearance, doesn't mean these issues are unimportant period.

For me? I agree with you on this, sorry if I ever gave you the impression those issues are unimportant. (I didn't.)

It doesn't mean they're bad or a sign of a mental problem, either (nice little slogan). Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it wrong and you absolutely right.

I may not understand, but my assertion remains undisputed, so it's probably correct, eh? I may not understand, but it's certainly not for a lack of people telling me I'm wrong but refusing to tell me why I'm wrong.

Makes me think that I DO understand, and I AM right. I won't deny you any bodyshape you want; you just have to disabuse yourself of the notion that calorie restriction is the only way to get there.

Try being a teenage girl weighing over 250 pounds. Try being ostracized by all peers your entire life, being heckled by strangers on the street. Then tell me that we should all accept our bodies as they are naturally, and counting calories (to suppress a naturally high body fat level, and stay thin) is an eating disorder. If you had to experience this, and if you had the threat of that looming over you, do you think you would view becoming and staying thin a pointless, sick narcissistic vain obsession? Ideally we should all accept our bodies as they are, never judge people by appearances. But we can't and we do, unfortunately.

I don't view becoming and staying thin a pointless, sick narcissistic vain obsession. I consider calorie counting a pointless, sick narcissistic vain obsession.

I DO think that we should all accept our bodies as they are naturally. NATURALLY. I'm very glad you used that word.

Wanting to modify your bodyshape to conform to a societal or personal preference is natural. (This sentence is not meant as sarcasm.)

Increasing your carb intake so that you can decrease the calories you eat is unnatural.

And unnecessary.

Samuel
Sat, Aug-06-05, 09:30
I like you to know that the maximum carb intake limit Dr. Atkins has recommended after 30 years of practice and research has not even been 20 carbs, it has probably been around 10-12.

The reason is that if we forget about the "net carbs" concepts which he has announced few months before his death after founding his food processing company with a partner, he was talking about counting "total carbs".

If his patients have been getting their carbs from green vegetables as Dr. Atkins has been recommending, 20 total carbs should include 8-10 grams of fibers. So the net carb limit has always been 10-12 carbs.

TheCaveman
Sat, Aug-06-05, 11:51
Can anyone with the first version of the Atkins book confirm one of his chapter titles as "How to Stay Fat--Keep Counting Calories", please?

ItsTheWooo
Sat, Aug-06-05, 14:24
I assert that you've never eaten unrestrained low-carb for any serious period of time. If you've been at 20g carbohydrate for six months, I will kindly retract and apologise. If you've done it for a year, I will do the same and suggest you a trip to the endocrinologist.

Hi Caveman,
I began Atkins Induction on March 03. I faithfully stuck to it for many months. I didn't start raising carbs until the end of November '03 (holiday time). I did not even *taste* a bad food, I was too scared to (since the change in appetite/metabolism was that dramatic I didn't want to run the risk of "ruining" it until I was closer to goal). I was eating often less than 10 grams a day, not even many veggies. For a long time I wouldn't even eat onions or tomatoes because I thought they were too sweet.

Needless to say, eating so few carbs and so few foods (calories) meant I lost weight extremely quickly. I lost almost half the weight I needed to lose in this time. To be honest I was still very fat and therefore losing very quickly so I have no idea if (when) it would have tapered off to nothingness. Then again, the foods I was eating were very basic and many days I wasn't eating more than 1000 cals per because of it, so who knows if I started to eat more "normal" (but induction-level carb restricted) if the losses would stop or not. LC cheesecakes made with liquid sweetener are only like 6 carbs per slice, but 1000 cals after all :). Mouses can be virtually carb free but loaded with cream. Rich steaks with cream sauces, guacamole, etc. I never ate stuff like that. I was eating chicken legs and cheese w/ celery for lunch and eggs with mushrooms and green peppers for breakfast. More cold chicken with leftover salad or broccoli for dinner :lol: .


Either way, one thing is certain. The weight I want to be is at odds with the weight my body wants to be. IF LC is a healthy way of eating, that will naturally bring you to the weight you're supposed to be, it would most certainly leave me heavier than I would want to be. The weight I am now, or even 120 pounds, and very likely even 130 pounds would be off limits. This has been demonstrated time and time again in the TDC forum, maybe you should check it out one day.
We tend to lose perfectly fine with unrestricted LC for 10, 20, 50 or more pounds... then eventually we reach a plateau point where at which the body feels it's supposed to be. This weight is almost always heavier than the "normal" range, and it is almost always heavier than what we would socially view as a "healthy weight". Those of us in the TDC have many more fat cells, and bodies that prefer to be heavier.
If we are to achieve the weights we want it almost always means manipulating calories at some point. I've just seen far too many TDCers stall out at 200 lbs doing everything right and otherwise perfectly healthy to believe that natural variation in fat cells & bodies aren't behind this stall.

Almost all TDCers, at some point, make the choice between restricting calories in some way or accepting their naturally heavier weights. Sometimes the body loses a bit more with time, but rarely is it seen that waiting out those kinds of stalls will eventually take you to your normal-weight goal (where losses come to a complete *stop* for months and months). Obesity, particularly related to carb sensitivity (hyperinsulinemia), leaves the body with many more fat cells... fat cells don't go away once you correct the hyperinsulinemia & hyperlipogenic state from carbs. You can empty too full cells, which is why we can reduce weight eating LC. But you can't get rid of them, which is also why very obese people rarely meet their normal weight goals without manipulating calories. "Set point" is permanently higher.


I may not understand, but my assertion remains undisputed, so it's probably correct, eh? I may not understand, but it's certainly not for a lack of people telling me I'm wrong but refusing to tell me why I'm wrong.

Makes me think that I DO understand, and I AM right. I won't deny you any bodyshape you want; you just have to disabuse yourself of the notion that calorie restriction is the only way to get there.

Like I said I have no real proof that I couldn't get there without manipulating calories. I noticed manipulating calories allowed me to lose faster, although I was losing without it, just more slowly.

Observationally I have reason to believe this is so. As I was saying before, I noticed almost everyone in the TDC loses at a nice clip, then losses get slower, eventually they reach a total plateau that cannot be broken. This usually happens at overweight & obese weights. The one thing in common all of these individuals have has nothing to do with lifestyle (read: NOT sleeping habits, stress levels, carb levels... these are all different). Some stayed on very low carb, others not. Some have stress free lives, others are very busy and hold tons of responsibilities. The one thing TDC stallers have in common is their history of significant obesity. In fact I can't think of a single TDCer who met their goal without at some point adopting calorie control as a strategy.

This leads me to believe all or most morbidly obese people have bodies that are naturally heavier than the average (probably as a result of the history of hyperinsulinemia & obesity). If we want to meet the "socially accepted" level of body fat, we must manipulate calories, forcing our bodies to accept a level of body fat that's a little lower than it would otherwise prefer.


I don't view becoming and staying thin a pointless, sick narcissistic vain obsession. I consider calorie counting a pointless, sick narcissistic vain obsession.

That's probably because you don't understand what it's like to have a body that naturally wants to be overweight. There are some people out there - the ex-morbidly obese in particular - who must choose between "accepting" their natural heavier bodies or of manipulating energy intake to suppress it.

This isn't your usual case of a higher-weight normal woman who wants to reduce her healthy, but socially unideal weight from 145 to 125 so she can wear a size 2. Many women in the TDC find their natural weight to be around 200 pounds, sometimes. These are weights where it might actually be healthier to suppress it than it is to not.

People who've been morbidly obese, you have multiple times more fat cells than a "normal" person. Fat cells aren't destroyed, even if you correct the hyperinsulinemic state that eventually created them. You can reduce weight, but it's likely natural weight will be higher than what others would consider healthy.

I DO think that we should all accept our bodies as they are naturally. NATURALLY. I'm very glad you used that word.

Great, that's a start.
Now if we can agree that some people - particularly the ex-morbidly obese - have bodies that are NATURALLY mildly obese & overweight, we might come to a mutual understanding (even if not an agreement) of why calorie control is sometimes an important tool (depending on your goals). I am under the impression you feel everyone is supposed to be "normal weight", and therefore if you fail to achieve normal weight, something is wrong with your lifestyle or health. I disagree with this entirely, if this is your belief.


Our musculature, like our fat levels, are 100% determined and controlled by hormones and genes and things like that. Environment & lifestyle can affect the expression of hormones & enzymes and things, but ultimately our bodies run the show, determining how muscular or fat we are or aren't. I'm sure you agree with this.

Sometimes, particularly for the ex-morbidly obese, "natural" body fat level is in obese or overweight range. Ideally we should accept our bodies as they are naturally. Sometimes, though we might prioritize aesthetics and social conformity above our natural shapes. This is a personal choice.

We can help our bodies achieve an aesthetic physical result that we want by controlling environmental variables, to yield a physical result that wouldn't otherwise naturally occur in our normal, healthy environments.

For example, men (and some women) take to body-sculpting. They are conditioning their muscles, impressively strengthening them far beyond a point that their bodies would naturally have without the intense conditioning regimen.
So it is with body fat levels. Some of us have bodies that are naturally heavy. When food is unrestrained, our bodies keep a level of fat that we find physically undesirable, just like individuals with naturally poor musculature don't keep on much bulk when activity is "normal". If one chooses to push their body beyond it's natural level of fat, calorie control is a useful tool.

For the ex-morbidly obese, naturally obese/fat person, eating unrestrained will result in obesity or overweight... just as for the naturally poorly-muscled, abstinence from weight training leaves them skinny. If either of these individuals wants to change their shape, they have to push their body beyond what it would have "normally" by consciously manipulating environment (restricting energy intake, or subjecting the body to focused, muscle conditioning programs respectively)

Wanting to modify your bodyshape to conform to a societal or personal preference is natural. (This sentence is not meant as sarcasm.)

Increasing your carb intake so that you can decrease the calories you eat is unnatural.

And unnecessary.

I never habitually eat carb levels that trigger symptoms. I look at it like this... if I need to control intake anyway, why not eat a couple more carbs doing it? I will be overriding my natural impulse for food either way.

I'm not eating carbs to the point where I'm rendered totally out of touch with my body, frequently feeling hypoglycemic feelings, or battling hunger all the time (although I have done that in the past, I fast learned it was counter-intuitive to my goals). I'm actually staying within what I feel to be my carb tolerance level (most of the time). If I ate the same carbs, but stopped restricting energy, I would probably go to my natural weight level (I would *maybe* be a little heavier, only because eating on the higher end of my carb tolerance level makes me more interested in food vs the complete suppression of appetite I experience when eating almost no carbs).
I reduce calories not so much by replacing butter with rice cakes, but by just eating less fats and taking smaller portions of everything.

lilacfairy
Sat, Aug-06-05, 19:05
Tell us what you mean by "can't do without carbs" - does this mean you have been unable to control carb cravings, unable to get through the carb withdrawal of induction, or are you just adversely affected in some other way by eating 20cg carbs or less. There are a lot of plans which allow a higher initial carb allowance (such as PP) and you may well be more suited to something like that.

One thing you cannot do is high carb and high fat - so no, persentage of fat is not critical - but if you are eating high enough carbs and not creating an energy deficit then both will be stored as fat, and the high carbs will prevent you from accessing that stored energy.

The other thing you need to consider is this way of life is not just a weight loss plan - low carb has major health benefits that a low fat plan can never match.

Cheers,

Malcolm

Malcolm:

Thanks for your response. I guess I wasn't wrong when I said that I couldn't do without carbs - I just found out that I'm pregnant. So now I know for a *fact* that I can't do without carbs :lol:

But anyway, on induction, I generally did feel pretty weak. I couldn't go very far hiking in the woods, even after I added a few extra carbs to my diet. I didn't like the weird way my muscles felt when I just wanted to have a nice workout on the treadmill. I also missed that natural serotonin feeling you get when you have carbs.

I don't like having to take tryptophan from a bottle to try to simulate that natural brain response to ingesting carbs. Also, I guess I don't feel like I lost a noticeable amount at all for the amount of suffering I felt like I was going through. Granted, I don't have a ton to lose, but I guess that's another reason why I figured I might as well just try how I was eating before again while maybe adopting better habits, eating less sugar, and taking it slow.

After my pregnancy, I may look into more low-carb plans if the weight is stubborn coming off. But I found that when I added carbs back into my diet, I went from barely able to jog 4 miles on the treadmill to running 6 MILES in one session, with energy to spare, and feeling absolutely awesome afterward.. I think running that much burned me almost 500 calories, which also was kinda encouraging (since I was a little worried about regaining after adding carbs).

Just curious, what amount of daily carbs would you consider "high carb"?

ItsTheWoo:

Thanks for the advice!! I just can't seem to do without a *whole* apple and peanut butter lately, but I guess since I'm pregnant, now of all times isn't the most crucial time to be worrying about losing weight... :)

mcsblues
Sat, Aug-06-05, 20:40
Some people don't do well on induction level carbs - some people don't give themselves a chance to find out - ie it takes some time for you to adapt to a fat burning metabolism - during that time you can expect some weakness (most people suggest you refrain from strenuous exercise at least for the first week or so). Another possible cause of loss of energy during this time is that you are not sufficiently replacing electrolytes lost during this highly diuretic time (potassium and magnesium).

But since you are pregnant, noone least of all Atkins is suggesting you should be on induction level carbs (he suggests you skip this phase). You also shouldn't be trying to lose weight. But that doesn't mean that you need a lot of carbs - far from it. IMHO you would be advised to look at a level around 50 - 75 cg - and see how that goes - with most of those carbs coming from vegetables and fruit - you don't "need" grains any more now, than before you were pregnant.

Take a look at Protein Power or the Maintenance levels of Atkins - make sure you are getting the best fats and at least adequate protein, and take this time to get yourself and your baby as healthy as possible. After all, low carb is primarily about better health - weight loss is not necessarily part of that equation.

Cheers,

Malcolm

lilacfairy
Sat, Aug-06-05, 21:22
Malcolm:

I felt kinda drained of energy even above induction levels...(added some nuts and stuff but I guess I did kinda give up after that instead of slowly increasing more.)

I was also slightly concerned about the fact that Atkins *did* have some arterial blockage (even though it wasn't attributed to his death) which caused him an actual attack in the past, and I was worried about other things I've read that mentioned that not everybody has a lowering of cholesterol on Atkins. For some, it rises, and to a dangerous degree. And I've read too many lasting warnings against cancer & kidney stones too, some from people who've apparently been there. Even read cases of death (in otherwise healthy albeit overweight people) from the diet, which may have been quite unusual, but still...how healthy can a WOE be if it actually kills someone? Atkins has been sued. The Atkins company actually admitted that its own plan might not be safe. Etc. etc. Little things like this build up in my head. So I suppose some of my low carb reluctance lies there, too. The more I raise my carbs but not lower saturated fats, the more concerned I am that I'm doing damage to my heart.

But I know that grains aren't that crucial or nutrient-dense, and I don't really eat that many, but I guess if they don't do me much harm and I'm craving some cereal or something, I'm not going to cut them out until I know for sure that they're making me gain unnecessary weight.

I may start counting my carbs again, just out of curiousity. I may be able to stay at or under 75 most days, but I haven't logged them much since I "quit", so I'm not certain. On days that I don't eat meat for dinner, probably not. But otherwise, it may be possible. Usually, I haven't been eating many carbs for breakfast. I'll have some egg whites cooked in coconut oil with green peppers, then some coffee & cream. For lunch, a protein shake with blueberries (and lately milk instead of heavy cream). As the day goes on, I tend to get slightly more lenient w/ carbs. Heehee.

As for electrolytes, I'd been eating straight potassium during Atkins by pouring Morton's No-Salt into capsules...I also have been supplementing w/ magnesium and calcium...so I don't think the weakness was really from a problem with that. It felt like depleted muscle glycogen. But maybe I still wasn't popping enough pills...I guess there's no real way of always knowing, unless you can afford a regular blood test to say which things you're deficient in, which I can't :(

Would you consider coconut oil a good fat, or do you think I should stop, at least until I determine my carb level? I've been eating a good amount of lean protein and good fat, so I assume that my percentages are still somewhat decent.

Thanks for the advice :)

mcsblues
Sat, Aug-06-05, 22:56
I felt kinda drained of energy even above induction levels...(added some nuts and stuff but I guess I did kinda give up after that instead of slowly increasing more.) How long did you actually give this?

I was also slightly concerned about the fact that Atkins *did* have some arterial blockage (even though it wasn't attributed to his death) which caused him an actual attack in the past, and I was worried about other things I've read that mentioned that not everybody has a lowering of cholesterol on Atkins. For some, it rises, and to a dangerous degree. And I've read too many lasting warnings against cancer & kidney stones too, some from people who've apparently been there. Even read cases of death (in otherwise healthy albeit overweight people) from the diet, which may have been quite unusual, but still...how healthy can a WOE be if it actually kills someone? Atkins has been sued. The Atkins company actually admitted that its own plan might not be safe. Etc. etc. Little things like this build up in my head. So I suppose some of my low carb reluctance lies there, too. The more I raise my carbs but not lower saturated fats, the more concerned I am that I'm doing damage to my heart.
Help! Where do I start? ;) Fairly late in his life I understand Dr Atkins had a form of cardiomyopathy caused by a viral infection. This has nothing to do with arterial blockage – and I understand he recovered and was pretty fit for a 72 year old at the time of his unfortunate, accidental demise (eg he was still playing tennis).

Total cholesterol is a pretty hopeless indicator of CHD risk – there are much better guides HDL:LDL ratio, triglycerides. C-reactive protein, fibrinogen etc. – and all the recent studies into the low carb diet now agree that this way of eating improves these factors much better than a low fat diet. – triglycerides in particular plummet on LC - because they are produced from carbs! – total cholesterol also tends to fall because the vast majority of our cholesterol we make ourselves (so cutting back on dietary sources is pointless!) – and with the lower insulin levels an relatively higher glucagon you inhibit HMG-CoA reductase – an enzyme which controls cellular production – the short version is your cells will produce less, so cells that need cholesterol (it has a number of vital functions in the body) will grab it from the blood stream rather than making their own – and your serum cholesterol will fall.

A few good sites to help here;

http://thincs.org/Malcolm.choltheory.htm (no that is another Malcolm – not me!)
http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth1.htm (leads on to 7 more cholesterol myth busting pages)
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Ellison4.html

As for the rest – kidney damage etc – you can find no end of complete nonsense on the net – but you do need to assess anything on whether it (a) makes sense, (b) is not posted by someone with some other agenda (did I say radical vegans??;)) and (c) is backed up by some good scientific reasoning and research (as low carb is) – but a good place to start is here;

http://www.theomnivore.com/commonmythsaboutlowcarbdiets.html


But I know that grains aren't that crucial or nutrient-dense, and I don't really eat that many, but I guess if they don't do me much harm and I'm craving some cereal or something, I'm not going to cut them out until I know for sure that they're making me gain unnecessary weight. Remember that low carb is not just about weight – your health may well be affected by eating things that not only aren’t crucial – but may have much wider health implications.

I may start counting my carbs again, just out of curiosity. I may be able to stay at or under 75 most days, but I haven't logged them much since I "quit", so I'm not certain. On days that I don't eat meat for dinner, probably not. But otherwise, it may be possible. Usually, I haven't been eating many carbs for breakfast. I'll have some egg whites cooked in coconut oil with green peppers, then some coffee & cream. For lunch, a protein shake with blueberries (and lately milk instead of heavy cream). As the day goes on, I tend to get slightly more lenient w/ carbs. What happened to the egg yolks – pleeeeeese don’t throw away a great protein source just from some misguided fear of cholesterol – you are over that now, right??;)

As for electrolytes, I'd been eating straight potassium during Atkins by pouring Morton's No-Salt into capsules... Ummm why? You could have just sprinkled on your food!

Would you consider coconut oil a good fat, or do you think I should stop, at least until I determine my carb level? I've been eating a good amount of lean protein and good fat, so I assume that my percentages are still somewhat decent. Yes, but make sure, as with all fats that you get the best, least processed kind you can – generally listed as organic, extra virgin, cold pressed etc – certainly not hydrogenated, refined, deodorised etc. Don’t worry about the percentages too much – just good saturated and monounsaturated fats plus at least one source of essential omega 3 fats – at least adequate amounts of protein (try to have protein with every meal/snack and limit those carbs to (mostly) good low carb vegetables and fruit – which not only give you a few carbs, but great vitamins, minerals. Antioxidants, fibre etc.

Cheers,

Malcolm

eepobee
Sun, Aug-07-05, 02:57
I was worried about other things I've read that mentioned that not everybody has a lowering of cholesterol on Atkins. For some, it rises, and to a dangerous degree. And I've read too many lasting warnings against cancer & kidney stones too, some from people who've apparently been there. Even read cases of death (in otherwise healthy albeit overweight people) from the diet, which may have been quite unusual, but still...how healthy can a WOE be if it actually kills someone? Atkins has been sued. The Atkins company actually admitted that its own plan might not be safe.
#1. lowering cholesterol can be more dangerous than raising it.
#2. what is a "dangerous degree"? there is absolutely no research that supports the hysteria surrounding "high" cholesterol. you've been duped.
#3. please don't take warnings about kidney stones and cancer seriously unless you've seen some solid scientific explanation behind restricted carb intake causing these afflictions. there are many, including dr. wolfgang lutz, who've pointed directly at glucose as nutritional support for cancer cells. again, be very critical of unsubstantiated claims.
#4. what were the circumstances behind these deaths that were blamed on a low-carb regimen? do you really believe the diet was behind these deaths?
#5. yes, atkins has been sued. atkins has been sued by a man who chose to have the radical vegan physcians' committee for responsible medicine in his corner. this doesn't mean that his claim is false, but it makes it highly suspicious. also, this man claimed to be on the diet, but noted that he was eating cheesecake a couple of times a week. cheesecake on atkins? hmmm. you should always consider the sources of information you recieve, not just regarding diet, but in life.

an excerpt from a study on ketogenic diets and exercise performance:There are to date no studies that carefully examine the optimum length of this keto-adapataion period, but it is clearly longer than one week and likely well advanced within 3–4 weeks. The process does not appear to happen any faster in highly trained athletes than in overweight or untrained individuals. This adaptation process also appears to require consistent adherence to carbohydrate restriction, as people who intermittently consume carbohydrates while attempting a ketogenic diet report subjectively reduced exercise tolerance.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

eepobee
Sun, Aug-07-05, 06:04
Total cholesterol is a pretty hopeless indicator of CHD risk – there are much better guides HDL:LDL ratio, triglycerides. C-reactive protein, fibrinogen etc. – and all the recent studies into the low carb diet now agree that this way of eating improves these factors much better than a low fat diet.
homocysteine is another good CHD indicator, or risk factor, that was indentified by dr. kilmer mccully back in the sixties. here's a pretty good summary with references:Questions began as numerous patients became afflicted with cardiovascular disease even though they lacked the "normal" risk factors, such as high cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, obesity and hypertension. Enter the Homocysteine Theory. In a 1990 study of 194 consecutive autopsies performed on atherosclerosis victims, researchers concluded that approximately two-thirds of the patients developed severe atherosclerosis without evidence of elevated serum cholesterol, diabetes or hypertension. Their explanation was elevated homocysteine. (McCully, 1990) Another observation was made in Ireland, where mortality rates for coronary heart disease in men is about three times higher than in France. While conventional risk factors did not account for the difference, plasma levels of homocysteine were significantly higher in the Irish than the French. (Manilow, 1996) When homocysteine is elevated, arteriosclerotic lesions can form which can cause intimal injury, calcium deposition and elastin degeneration within the arterial wall. (McCully, 1990) It has been suggested that supplementation of folic acid could prevent approximately 13,500-50,000 deaths caused by coronary artery disease annually. (Boushey, 1995)

http://www.nutritiondynamics.com/research_articles6.htm

Boushey, C.J., et al., "A quantitative assessment of plasma homocysteine as a risk factor for vascular disease. Probable benefits of increasing folic acid intakes [see comments]" JAMA 274:13 (October4, 1995): 1049-57.

Malinow, M.R., M.D., "Hyperhomocysteinemia: A Common and Easily Reversible Risk Factor For Occlusive Atherosclerosis" Circulation 81(1990): 2004-6.

McCully, Kilmer, S.D., "Atherosclerosis, Serum Cholesterol and the Homocysteine Theory: A Study of 194 Consecutive Autopsies" The American Journal of the Medial Sciences 299:4 (April 1990): 217-221.

TheCaveman
Sun, Aug-07-05, 19:03
Briefly, a point about fat cells:

Those of us in the TDC have many more fat cells,
Obesity, particularly related to carb sensitivity (hyperinsulinemia), leaves the body with many more fat cells... fat cells don't go away once you correct the hyperinsulinemia & hyperlipogenic state from carbs. You can empty too full cells, which is why we can reduce weight eating LC. But you can't get rid of them,
People who've been morbidly obese, you have multiple times more fat cells than a "normal" person. Fat cells aren't destroyed, even if you correct the hyperinsulinemic state that eventually created them.

You seem to go from bad to worse here, perhaps emphasize your point. Yes, obese people have more fat cells. And no, fat cells don't go away once you correct the hyperinsulinemia and hyperlipogenic state. But you might be giving the impression to the ex-obese that fat cells aren't destroyed for any reason, and you can't get rid of them ever.

That the body would maintain cells without purpose violates thermodynamics, and the cell biologists would have to start their profession over from scratch if it were possible. Even cancer cells have a purpose.

So fat cells must be doing something besides sitting there consuming energy. Why do fat cells stick around once the hyperinsulinemia and hyperlipogenic state is resolved to normal levels? I don't know for sure, but I think that estrogen resistance and dysfunctional levels of estrogen and progesterone would explain why those fat cells are still around and very necessary. If those other problems are resolved as well, would those fat cells go away then? I don't know.

I am under the impression you feel everyone is supposed to be "normal weight",

If by "normal weight" you mean slender, like you, then yes.

and therefore if you fail to achieve normal weight, something is wrong with your lifestyle or health.

Yes.

I disagree with this entirely, if this is your belief.

Do you? I'm not so sure, since you continually contradict your denial of the effect of lifestyle and health (environment) on the ability to achieve normal weight.

Environment & lifestyle can affect the expression of hormones & enzymes and things,
We can help our bodies achieve an aesthetic physical result that we want by controlling environmental variables,
They are conditioning their muscles, impressively strengthening them far beyond a point that their bodies would naturally have without the intense conditioning regimen.
If one chooses to push their body beyond it's natural level of fat, calorie control is a useful tool.
If either of these individuals wants to change their shape, they have to push their body beyond what it would have "normally" by consciously manipulating environment

And what is a diet if not a change in environment?

Our musculature, like our fat levels, are 100% determined and controlled by hormones and genes and things like that. Environment & lifestyle can affect the expression of hormones & enzymes and things, but ultimately our bodies run the show, determining how muscular or fat we are or aren't. I'm sure you agree with this.

I don't think I agree with this, but there are so many contradictions (in my opinion) in it that I am unsure what you mean.

Environment controls the genetics of obesity.

Hormones are the environment for genes. Food and lifestyle are the environment for hormones.





We can help our bodies achieve an aesthetic physical result that we want by controlling environmental variables, to yield a physical result that wouldn't otherwise naturally occur in our normal, healthy environments.

...

The one thing in common all of these individuals have has nothing to do with lifestyle (read: NOT sleeping habits, stress levels, carb levels... these are all different). Some stayed on very low carb, others not. Some have stress free lives, others are very busy and hold tons of responsibilities.

...

IF LC is a healthy way of eating, that will naturally bring you to the weight you're supposed to be,

How can these differing environments all be considered normal and healthy? And since most people have no gauge of their hormonal health, can they say for certain that they are healthy?

The PC answer to all this is that you've wrongly used the word "natural" to describe everyones environment. If by "natural" you mean "current", then I agree with you that the body has a set point FOR THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT. But with people treating their bodies in unexpected ways, ways that have absolutely nothing to do with nature, unnaturally, are they really so surprised that they stall at a chubby weight and have to resort to something unhealthy (calorie restriction) in order to trick their bodies into obedience?

Yes, if low carb is a healthy way of eating, it will naturally bring you to the weight you're supposed to be, GIVEN YOUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT. This weight will probably be fatter than ideal, if your environment is less than ideal.

Wooo, your extraordinary claim begs for extraordinary evidence. There is none.

I've just seen far too many TDCers stall out at 200 lbs doing everything right and otherwise perfectly healthy

I assert that you've seen zero.

I'll presume that "doing everything right" means--at the very least--following the diet. For Atkins, this means following the CCLL model, and would mean that anyone on a stall would be consuming 20g carbohydrate. By your own admission, this is not the case. So, in my experience in the TDC, not only are the stallers not "doing everything right", they aren't even doing the DIET right. So what does "doing everything right" mean to you? I don't think you have to do EVERYTHING right in order to be a desired weight, but if you're violating the diet and have no idea what other healthy thing you could do to achieve your desired weight, then you aren't even really trying.

I presume that "otherwise perfectly healthy" means "otherwise perfectly healthy, as far as anyone knows". For the stallers, you can count on one hand the number of people who know what their thyroids, adrenals and pituitaries are doing. If you're a woman having trouble losing weight and you don't even know what your thyroid tests (Nancy LC where are you?), then you aren't even really trying.

I've visited the TDC a few times, and it discouraged me, and I no longer visit, for just the reasons you cite. Can you imagine what it would be like if I waltzed in there and actually started posting? Woof.

TDCer: "Hi, I'm 5'8" and 200 pounds, and I've been in a stall for six months. I'm doing Atkins and I eat 50g carbohydrate a day. What should I do?"

TheCaveman: "A stall at 50g carbohydrate per day is not possible if you're using the CCLL model. Cut your carb intake to 45g per day and see if you lose weight."

TDCer: "Screw you Caveman! I want my carbs!"

Wooo, maybe we can clear this up. If you (or anyone) can find me someone in the TDC (or anyone) that is:

1. In a stall. Any definition will do, but let's use "stuck at an undesirable weight for months and months". (I suspect there are few of these people, since you couldn't "think of a single TDCer who met their goal without at some point adopting calorie control as a strategy.")

2. Following the diet. I would prefer Atkins, since it's a diet where you can actually measure things. Protein Power or others will do. (I suspect that there are few of these people, since I couldn't find freestyle dieters (My Own Plan) who weren't increasing carbs while failing to lose weight.)

3. Tested normal thyroid function. Not "low, normal". Normal.

If you want to ditch out of number 3 you can, since I think the first two parameters will reduce the sample size to zero people. You can invite them to this thread, PM me, anything. Also, you can cite historical evidence that these people might exist in previous posts in the TDC. This might be asking too much, but you gave me the impression that you've "just seen far too many TDCers stall out at 200 lbs doing everything right and otherwise perfectly healthy".

ItsTheWooo
Sun, Aug-07-05, 20:34
Briefly, a point about fat cells:





You seem to go from bad to worse here, perhaps emphasize your point. Yes, obese people have more fat cells. And no, fat cells don't go away once you correct the hyperinsulinemia and hyperlipogenic state. But you might be giving the impression to the ex-obese that fat cells aren't destroyed for any reason, and you can't get rid of them ever.

You can get rid of them... by removing the excess/lax skin and getting liposuction. Sorry caveman, but once a fat cell is made, it's real hard for the body to destroy it. They're more or less permanent. In the future they may have some kind of drug therapies to help the morbidly obese reduce fat cell levels, so they may reduce total body fat without underfeeding (i.e. "low cal" or WLS or any other "don't eat so much" approach). Right now surgery basically is the only option at this point in time to get rid of excess fat cells.

That the body would maintain cells without purpose violates thermodynamics, and the cell biologists would have to start their profession over from scratch if it were possible. Even cancer cells have a purpose.

The cells don't not have a purpose... they DO have fat in them. They're not empty. That's the point I'm trying to make: the body doesn't WANT to under-fill the fat cell, which is why ex-morbidly obese people find it impossible to reduce body fat pounds to a "normal" level without under eating. For them (us), "normal" body fat (adequate fat stores) is an amount of body fat, in pounds, that is overweight for a matched normal person.

So fat cells must be doing something besides sitting there consuming energy.

Yea... they're sitting there, under-full, sending hormonal messages to make us hungrier & burn less energy in hopes to try to get us to fill them up again.
Studies show the ex-morbidly obese, even in maintenance, burn less energy at rest than matched people who were never overweight after all.

You act as if it's irrational to feel the body would keep fat cells once they're created. I admit I'm going to just spout off here, but I think it serves a survival advantage for our bodies to not want to destroy fat cells, even when we're emptying them & aren't filling them up again. It makes perfect sense to me, to try to preserve the status quo in so far as fat stores are concerned.
Keep in mind, hyperinsulinemia from carbohydrate abuse (and the resulting fat cell creation) is completely foreign to our bodies, it's a disease state that is a consequence of modern diet & lifestyle exclusively. It is unheard of to our prehistoric bodies. It, like hyperglycemia (high carb diet), is something our bodies handle very poorly, because it is not something it ever encountered before.

SO I think our bodies are not equipped from birth with coding to tell the difference between "extra white fat cells we made over the years from hyperinsulinemia after eating too many doritos & hoagies" from "white fat cells that are essential". As far as our bodies know, the fat cells we have are the fat cells we NEED, period. Our bodies do know "food is a contested resource", and our bodies do know animals who don't have any body fat, and can't make body fat, are animals that aren't as likely to survive... so the body definitely will always jealously guard it's precious fat stores and scream at us to replenish them when they wain (governed by size of fat cells, and the signals fat cells send depending on the size). It more than learned these lessons during evolution.
However, our body knows NOTHING about how to handle the high sugar & high insulin from modern diets, therefore it's unreasonable to assume our body knows how to off excess white fat cells that are unnecessary (aka the scars of obesity).

Naturally, our bodies would not want to off it's own white fat cells for any reason. Our bodies cannot see that it has excess white fat cells to begin with. This is a completely foreign concept to a body evolved on meat and fat, trying as best as it can to cope with the sugar assault of modern life.

Why do fat cells stick around once the hyperinsulinemia and hyperlipogenic state is resolved to normal levels? I don't know for sure, but I think that estrogen resistance and dysfunctional levels of estrogen and progesterone would explain why those fat cells are still around and very necessary. If those other problems are resolved as well, would those fat cells go away then? I don't know.

Caveman I think you would understand the situation better if you yourself had an ex-morbidly obese weight suppressed body. I can visibly see with my eyes the pockets of fat sag on thighs, a tremendous amount... and I can visibly feel with my hands the craggy ridges of protruding vertebrae on the back of my neck and back. My lower body tells a weight of maybe 130 pounds, my upper body, maybe 100. This is uneven fat cell distribution. This is excess fat cells (and a very sub-optimal level of total body fat pounds relative to fat cells, which is patently obvious by observing areas of my body that are fat cell normal).

The bottom line is this. Obese people's bodies aren't going to destroy the extra fat cells. Why would they? Why would our bodies have this mechanism to deal with a problem that should not even exist? Why would the body have this feature built in, to deal with a problem that we humans did to ourselves relatively recently with unnatural diets? If we started hacking off limbs tomorrow, do you think the body would grow them back? Of course not.

Yet you act as if this is a good possibility at all (of destroying excess fat cells), expected even, when all the research (and IMO common sense) says otherwise. My body is never going to destroy the fat cells in my thighs, making them look "normal" and not laden with handfuls of fat, and take that fat and redistribute it to my neck. It's just not going to happen.

The cursory reading about this shows that once a fat cell is created, it's there forever. Losing weight and exercising does nothing. You can get them surgically removed, that's pretty much it. Our options are either a) stop suppressing weight, accept a socially overweight size... b) continue to suppress weight, mimic normal-size though physically underweight for body... c) get surgeries to target the worst areas, surgically removing fat cells.


Do you? I'm not so sure, since you continually contradict your denial of the effect of lifestyle and health (environment) on the ability to achieve normal weight.

No, I do not contradict that lifestyle and health strongly influence whether or not we use energy properly, and therefore (symptomatically of good metabolic health) maintain normal body fat levels. I maintain this position always.

It is our definition of "normal weight" I am at contesting. I contest that "normal weight" is some subjective observation of whether or not a person appears overweight relative to the average. Overweight for you might be normal weight for him, because he used to be 400 pounds and has multiple times more fat cells than you do. Get my point?

Seeing as you disagree that there is ever a circumstance where appearing visibly overweight or obese can actually be "normal" for the body (even if we factor in being rehabilitated from extreme obesity & hyperinsulinemia)... it's likely we won't be able to agree that the way we are defining "normal weight" is all wrong. You seem pretty set on using body fat calipers or scales or our eyes, or whatever as a yardstick for whether or not a person is overweight. I don't think this is correct because it is number of white fat cells that will determine how "fluffy" a person looks when healthy and well nourished with adequate amounts of body fat. If we can't agree on this point, continuing this discussion is futile as my entire position pivotally rests on it.

Brennabug
Sun, Aug-07-05, 20:45
Caveman and Wooo.

this discussion if futile anyway. you are both set in your opinions, unwilling to concede very much, and confusing a lot of people! I am just hoping that you two enjoy this banter and are not REALLY angry, upset or feeling indignant toward eachother?
Maybe you enjoy this bickering? ...i guess it's always a possibilty.
why not leave the world of real and pretend all of your subjects are wild, naked and living in the forest without vaccines, electricity, or plumbing? :) that would be fun to watch!

Brenna :lol:

mcsblues
Sun, Aug-07-05, 21:01
People who've been morbidly obese, you have multiple times more fat cells than a "normal" person. Fat cells aren't destroyed, even if you correct the hyperinsulinemic state that eventually created them.


You seem to go from bad to worse here, perhaps emphasize your point. Yes, obese people have more fat cells. And no, fat cells don't go away once you correct the hyperinsulinemia and hyperlipogenic state.Maybe I'm putting myself at risk of being hit from both sides;) ... but can I just point out that although fat cells have a long life (thus making them difficult to study) they do in fact die/are destroyed/'go away' - or technically 'apoptosis' (cell death) and these dead cells are eliminated from the body - and it certainly appears from current reseach that like any other cell in the body, they are not replaced if no 'need' is apparent. The problem with the study of the life and death of adipose tissue appears to be not just their longevity - of 240-425 days (8-14 months), but also as might be gauged from that large range, the high degree of variability amongst subjects.

Cheers,

Malcolm

DietSka
Mon, Aug-08-05, 01:14
SO I think our bodies are not equipped from birth with coding to tell the difference between "extra white fat cells we made over the years from hyperinsulinemia after eating too many doritos & hoagies" from "white fat cells that are essential". As far as our bodies know, the fat cells we have are the fat cells we NEED, period.
Actually, the body knows very well the difference between different non-essential and essential body fat. This is why it is so hard for women (especially female bodybuilders who diet their way down to very low bodyfat levels) to lose weight in the hips or thighs, since the body holds on to that fat harder -- it is essential for reproduction.

ItsTheWooo
Mon, Aug-08-05, 07:31
Caveman and Wooo.

this discussion if futile anyway. you are both set in your opinions, unwilling to concede very much, and confusing a lot of people! I am just hoping that you two enjoy this banter and are not REALLY angry, upset or feeling indignant toward eachother?
Maybe you enjoy this bickering? ...i guess it's always a possibilty.
why not leave the world of real and pretend all of your subjects are wild, naked and living in the forest without vaccines, electricity, or plumbing? :) that would be fun to watch!

Brenna :lol:
I don't perceive The Caveman as angry, I think he think's he's right (but then again so do I :D). I admit I do enjoy the arguments & debates online, what can I say I'm a libra :roll: .

Who knows I could very well be entirely wrong. Maybe those of us in the TDC can all naturally achieve a socially accepted "normal weight" size without counting calories and consciously suppressing weight. Maybe what I've heard about fat cells is all wrong. It makes sense to me, though, evaluating my own observations of my body, and listening to the accounts of others who have a history of significant obesity. It is fairly universal that plateaus start happening, it's pretty standard that weight is eventually maintained at a size that is a little overweight (or sometimes even moderately obese), it's also standard that we must accept a great deal of uneven fat distribution (again likely because of fat cells). It does get better in maintenance but so far it doesn't ever totally go away.

Zuleikaa
Mon, Aug-08-05, 10:38
...My body is never going to destroy the fat cells in my thighs, making them look "normal" and not laden with handfuls of fat, and take that fat and redistribute it to my neck. It's just not going to happen.
Fat cells will redistribute, it just takes time...a lot of time.
The cursory reading about this shows that once a fat cell is created, it's there forever. Losing weight and exercising does nothing.

Woo
Your reading on fat cells needs to go beyond cursory. Fat cells do die. They are long lived but they do die. That fat cells don't die is old science that has been repeated ad infinitum. A lie repeated often enough and written as fact enough still doesn't make it true.

ItsTheWooo
Mon, Aug-08-05, 11:27
Fat cells will redistribute, it just takes time...a lot of time.

What sort of time frame are we talking about here? Will energy balance affect things? Because I lost weight to 150 pounds in March of 2004, I slowly lost 40 pounds thereafter. In the fall of 2004 I got down to 120ish, that's only 10 pounds heavier than I am now. I have maintained weight in a tight range around 110 for months now... and if you count 10 pounds as a narrow range, I've been maintaining for about a year. So we're talking more or less a year of maintaining massive weight loss and I have not noticed much redistributing of fat. Maybe I'm not keeping my energy in a tight enough balance (it fluxes a lot... one night I'll go to an all you can eat chinese buffet the next day I'll eat 1200 cals... but I figure that's what normal people do anyway, normal people don't eat the same calories every single day). But it's not happening for me. My back is still pretty skeletal and craggy from bones, and my thighs very flabby (although not as bad as before, but then again I DID put on weight so who knows if it's redistrubted weight or simply the weight gain).

Woo
Your reading on fat cells needs to go beyond cursory. Fat cells do die. They are long lived but they do die. That fat cells don't die is old science that has been repeated ad infinitum. A lie repeated often enough and written as fact enough still doesn't make it true.
Alright, I will admit I have no idea if it's correct or not, since you are certain and I am not I will just agree that you are right.

If it's true then it would mean that something else common to obese people, must be stopping very obese people from achieving normal weight naturally (without consciously restricting energy). Seeing as the one thing all very obese people have in common is a lot of extra fat cells, and just about all of us deal with the "high fat/low fat" areas to exaggerated extremes (unlike normal people) I figured that must be it.

TheCaveman
Mon, Aug-08-05, 12:27
Dang, I guess we're going to drop it. Fat cells may be hard to get rid of, but the discussion of fat cells is undergoing apoptosis.

I admit I'm going to just spout off here, but I think it serves a survival advantage for our bodies to not want to destroy fat cells, even when we're emptying them & aren't filling them up again. It makes perfect sense to me, to try to preserve the status quo in so far as fat stores are concerned.
Keep in mind, hyperinsulinemia from carbohydrate abuse (and the resulting fat cell creation) is completely foreign to our bodies, it's a disease state that is a consequence of modern diet & lifestyle exclusively. It is unheard of to our prehistoric bodies. It, like hyperglycemia (high carb diet), is something our bodies handle very poorly, because it is not something it ever encountered before.

SO I think our bodies are not equipped from birth with coding to tell the difference between "extra white fat cells we made over the years from hyperinsulinemia after eating too many doritos & hoagies" from "white fat cells that are essential". As far as our bodies know, the fat cells we have are the fat cells we NEED, period. Our bodies do know "food is a contested resource", and our bodies do know animals who don't have any body fat, and can't make body fat, are animals that aren't as likely to survive... so the body definitely will always jealously guard it's precious fat stores and scream at us to replenish them when they wain (governed by size of fat cells, and the signals fat cells send depending on the size). It more than learned these lessons during evolution.
However, our body knows NOTHING about how to handle the high sugar & high insulin from modern diets, therefore it's unreasonable to assume our body knows how to off excess white fat cells that are unnecessary (aka the scars of obesity).

I disagree with almost everything you've said here about human evolution. If you don't think you're too far out of your league on this one, we could contine it in another thread?

Caveman I think you would understand the situation better if you yourself had an ex-morbidly obese weight suppressed body.

Wooo, I don't know why you keep saying this. Was I not fat enough then, or thin enough now to qualify for this category?

why not leave the world of real and pretend all of your subjects are wild, naked and living in the forest without vaccines, electricity, or plumbing?

Are you kidding? That's all I do, it seems!

If you'll allow me a bit of metadiscussion: I bite down on Wooo because I know she can take it. We don't know each other; she seems nice enough. I hope she remebers, as I try to, that the discussion isn't really for us, it's for the rest of you all reading. The War Zone is a good place to jump into the deep end and see how well you swim.

If it's true then it would mean that something else common to obese people, must be stopping very obese people from achieving normal weight naturally (without consciously restricting energy).

Again, maybe it's a poor environment.

Wyvrn
Mon, Aug-08-05, 13:58
If it's true then it would mean that something else common to obese people, must be stopping very obese people from achieving normal weight naturally (without consciously restricting energy).Impatience?

Wyv

TBoneMitch
Tue, Aug-09-05, 09:39
I, for one, really enjoy this type of friendly yet animated and opiniated debate because, as caveman said, it really allows to go deep in the subjects at hand, especially when the debaters have practical experience and a solid theoritical background (which is the case here).

This is what makes this forum so special, and what draws me to spend hours reading these posts.

Brennabug
Tue, Aug-09-05, 09:49
i guess it is just me then. I love science..biology, genetics, you name it.. i love a lot of things.. however i hate to see bickering.. i cant read these posts between caveman and whoo because it seems full of so much animosity. After the first three or four posts i found i couldnt even read what they wrote on other posts.. even my own. Not for dislike of them but my brain automatically thinks GOOD GRIEF!! not this again LOL... I know that when they post to any of my posts it is probably out of concern and good intentions too. :) well.. i just spent a minute thinking about deleting this whole post.. but here it is.. i am speechless..........

Isabella2
Tue, Aug-09-05, 16:41
Hi,
I did the susan powters LOW fat thing after having my daughter in 1991 and did GREAT...I lost all my weight and MORE and got down to a size 2 pants...
Then- in 1997 I had my youngest son...and over time I have put on some weight and TRIED to go back to low fat...but I just felt it was so hard to find things that were tasty or that my family would eat! lol
(in 1991-i was just beginning to have a family- now -they are not only older BUT more demanding)-hahahahaha
Going low carb, really is nice and I can find more foods that make tasty dishes that we can all have...
I do wonder about the question about Calories ...
I never counted Calories on Susan Powters...and I lost tons of weight...and I'm definetly not counting calories going low carb either...
If you are wondering which "low carb diet" to try or just want more info about it- the book I would HIGHLY recommend is:
"Living the Low Carb Life" by Jonny Bowden...If you could rent it at your local library or if you live near a book store that has tables that you could sit down and just browse books...I think this is a wonderful 'beginning' book...
Good Luck with your efforts...and I hope you find the plan that is perfect for you :)

rachelratz
Wed, Sep-14-05, 05:49
Susan Powter....oh wow, was she the angry women with white hair? She preached the low fat life in a rage. As I recall she was obese and has stayed trim for a long time. Do you know if she still is? I would love to see a new picture of her.

runnr
Wed, Sep-14-05, 07:05
And an apple is not a good example of a healthy carb

This bugs me - an apple might be a fruit high in natural sugar content, but the inference is that it makes it an UNHEALTHY carb

Lets get serious - unhealthy carbs are refined sugar and white flour. The rest of the carbs are "healthy" carbs, some are just better than others

I wouldn't have had a problem with that statement if you would have used "good" instead of "healthy" but c'mon, an apple is healthy

Monika4
Wed, Sep-14-05, 18:10
Isn't it also possible to do moderate fat, moderate carb diet?
South Beach is basically that - well they say good carbs and the good fats. You limit carbs but not carbs in veggies - i.e. you can have as many veggie carbs as you like, plus some from fruit and some from dairy and some from whole grain products. South Beach also asks to stick to lean meats and fish/sea food, and to non fat or lowfat dairy - so I would say that is exactly what you are asking.

I started with Atkins but found this more variaty, better digestion, felt healthier.

whyspers
Wed, Sep-14-05, 18:40
OMG, Caveman is right! I'm so glad you guys had this little debate, because I learned something new. I ran across this interview that discusses how fat cells die, leptin, etc. Very, very fascinating!!! Woohooooooo....I'm not stuck with these fat cells!!!!!!!!!

*Edited to add link http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s20847.htm
L

P.S. For what its worth, Woo, I was about to jump in and ask where Caveman got his medical degree....afterall...everyone knows fat cells don't die...heeheee. Glad I didn't <grin>

CindySue48
Wed, Sep-14-05, 18:57
That theorey never sat well with me....so this was nice to read!

jmom
Thu, Sep-15-05, 10:36
I assert that you've seen zero.

I'll presume that "doing everything right" means--at the very least--following the diet. For Atkins, this means following the CCLL model, and would mean that anyone on a stall would be consuming 20g carbohydrate. By your own admission, this is not the case. So, in my experience in the TDC, not only are the stallers not "doing everything right", they aren't even doing the DIET right. So what does "doing everything right" mean to you? I don't think you have to do EVERYTHING right in order to be a desired weight, but if you're violating the diet and have no idea what other healthy thing you could do to achieve your desired weight, then you aren't even really trying.



Hi Caveman,

When I started Atkins, I steadily lost weight going from about 210 down to 170 over a 7 month period. I stayed with the formula religiously-rarely getting over 20 g carbs and NEVER getting over 30. I did not change my eating habits at all and came to a screeching halt at 170. I kept waiting for the stall to resolve itself as I read it should. However, over the next year, I gained back 10 lbs-while following Atkins with no "cheats" whatsoever. Last month, I started counting calories and counting carbs-keeping my carbs to a limit of 20 and calories at 1000-1200. In that month, I am now back down to 170 and hope to continue beyond that. All blood work for me comes out normal so it is not a thyroid issue. I walk 1.5 hours/day or alternatively run 30 min/day at least 6 days a week.

Sometimes it is easy assume that other people's bodies react the same as our own to a particular formula-it is quite natural to base opinions on personal experience. But, I can absolutely tell you based on my personal experience, if someone is not losing or maintaining on a strict low carb regime, it does not mean they are not "doing everything right".

I've enjoyed the discussion between you and WOOO-very interesting.

black57
Thu, Sep-15-05, 22:18
This bugs me - an apple might be a fruit high in natural sugar content, but the inference is that it makes it an UNHEALTHY carb

Lets get serious - unhealthy carbs are refined sugar and white flour. The rest of the carbs are "healthy" carbs, some are just better than others

I wouldn't have had a problem with that statement if you would have used "good" instead of "healthy" but c'mon, an apple is healthy

I humbly dissagree. A healthy carb is one that manifests a minimum impact on insulin levels. An apple, for example has too many carbohydrates to fall under this category of healthy carbs. However, you can get around this by eating a section of that apple ( not the whole thing ) with protein such as chicken or a piece of cheese. Protein slows the absorption of glucose into the bloodstream. This is how I eat an apple when I choose to eat one on ocasion. A Carbohydrate is converted into glucose, once it enters the system. It doesn't care if that glucose comes from an apple or a slice of apple pie. Eating a whole apple can cause an insulin spike, the very thing that you want to avoid.

runnr
Fri, Sep-16-05, 06:33
I'm all about glucose control, but you still haven't convinced me that an apple is not a healthy carb

black57
Fri, Sep-16-05, 07:28
My intention isn't to convince you of anything. If you want the apple and it doesn't impact your insulin levels then it is for you. However, someone who has insulin resistance might want to take these facts into consideration.

ButterflyA
Fri, Sep-16-05, 11:26
I humbly dissagree. A healthy carb is one that manifests a minimum impact on insulin levels. An apple, for example has too many carbohydrates to fall under this category of healthy carbs. However, you can get around this by eating a section of that apple ( not the whole thing ) with protein such as chicken or a piece of cheese. Protein slows the absorption of glucose into the bloodstream. This is how I eat an apple when I choose to eat one on ocasion. A Carbohydrate is converted into glucose, once it enters the system. It doesn't care if that glucose comes from an apple or a slice of apple pie. Eating a whole apple can cause an insulin spike, the very thing that you want to avoid.

Exactly… my body feels just as cruddy if I eat a peach as it did when I snuck a bite or two of peach ice cream… The instant stomach churning, slight nausea, the sweatiness that lets me know I’m having a sugar spike… Both did the same thing to me, so I can’t have either one. There are some people that their body doesn’t honestly know the difference between fruit and empty sugar or whatever… I’m one of them… It doesn’t mean I can’t ever have any, but that I have to watch and make sure I eat it with a hunk of meat so that I don’t get clammy and sweaty… To me it isn’t worth it anymore- the sugar (ANY sugar) makes me feel like crap, truly. I try my hardest to avoid it like the plague, because otherwise I’ll pay for it later :lol:

tuscany
Fri, Sep-16-05, 13:29
Wow really ! I should count myself lucky then...I have eaten a ton of fruit this summer - berries, cantaloupe, papaya, a little mango. OF course my weight loss is completely stalled, but I haven't gained any. But no stomach-churning, clammy-palms feeling at all. Infact I quite enjoyed them :)
Now that summer is almost over, its time to hunker down & go lc. I'm less interested in winter fruits anyway

bladegem
Wed, Oct-12-05, 14:55
Susan Powter....oh wow, was she the angry women with white hair? She preached the low fat life in a rage. As I recall she was obese and has stayed trim for a long time. Do you know if she still is? I would love to see a new picture of her.

She's still thin on http://susanpowteronline.com/aboutsusan.html) where she states, "But, atkins? No. Not the high protein load of rot - resurrected from the 70's dead…….no, no, no…."

Not that I care what she says in an endless stream of incoherent rants, but you asked. :)

deirdra
Wed, Oct-12-05, 16:15
Isn't it also possible to do moderate fat, moderate carb diet? Like not being afraid of fat (w/o going overboard), getting protein, & eating carbs (except the starchy or sugary ones)? As long as you keep the cals below a certain point & exercise, that's a pretty healthy diet. I thought that was one of the most recommended, healthy kinds of diets today. Lately, I haven't heard of any *truly* low-fat diets being recommended in most health publications, anyway.

This only works if you have no problem with moderate carbs causing insulin spikes; most people who are >30# overweight do. Some people are ultimately able to eat like this in maintanence, but others cannot eat more than 50g net carbs without getting back into cycles of hunger, carb cravings & fat storage.

PilotGal
Wed, Oct-12-05, 16:26
Yes, but make sure, as with all fats that you get the best, least processed kind you can – generally listed as organic, extra virgin, cold pressed etc – certainly not hydrogenated, refined, deodorised etc.

in re: coconut oil...

My coconut oil comes from the Caribbean. All it says is "Pure Coconut Oil." How would I know how it was processed?

CindySue48
Wed, Oct-12-05, 17:40
in re: coconut oil...

My coconut oil comes from the Caribbean. All it says is "Pure Coconut Oil." How would I know how it was processed?I was told to look at the color and scent. It housl have a mild smell of coconut. If solid it should be pure white....and if liquid completely clear. If there is any tinge of color it indicates that either it's been processed or they used spoiled coconuts.