"Remember low-carbohydrate intake means a lower insulin level; and, a lower insulin level means that you can easily unload fat from your fat cells. But, if your body has no need to use any of the fat from your fat cells because it has more than enough fat to meet all its needs coming in from your diet, it's not going to go after your stored fat, and you won't lose weight. To lose weight, you've got to create an energy deficit to bring about a reasonable weight loss." (Eades page 51)

That's it in a nut shell.

I really like this book. Its what I've been calling my "modified Atkins" approach.

I guess you're really excited about that, Rachel! Is that from PP or PPLP? Not that I want to say Dr. Mike is wrong, but how does that square with his "metabolic advantage" belief? He doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie and why are so many people losing weight on high fat---80% of their diet?

Just askin' because I read soooo many different opinions, and while I have great faith in Dr. Mike, I'm getting confused!

I agree with him, good quote!

Check out Elle's high fat thread - they tend to eat less than 2k calories per day (usually between 1500-1800, up to 2500). So they're not taking in tons of calories. I think that all of these low carb theories end up working together, almost a synchronicity type thing...

Just my thoughts.
Chris

As I understand it, Dr. Eades also says that you have to have a calorie deficit to loose weight, but that you have an additional metabolic advantage if you eat LC, which also makes it easier to loose weight.
A calorie IS a calorie, but depending on what kind of calorie you're eating - carbs or protein - more of the energy is used for the more complicated processing in the body. If one says a calorie is not a calorie, that just means the effect on the body is not the same depending on where those calories come from.

Exactly, the term calorie when applied to food is a descriptor, but not a particularly good one.

It was Atkins who pushed the metabolic advantage idea, and he coupled it with thoughts about calories. In my opinion his focus was wrong, and likely due to marketing his diet (you can eat more calories) rather than a reflection of his belief of what the metabolic advantage really is. I have never read Eades (or anyone else) use the term but because metabolic advantage has become synonymous with "eat more calories than you burn and lose" I much prefer the term biochemical advantage. It describes the ideas in that quote Rachel posted.

Rachel, that's how I came to PP. I was modifying Atkins all over the place to get losing again, read PP and PPLP, and realized that was exactly where all my modifications were taking me.

I like this quote, I think maybe compared to eating lowfat higher fat is definitely better but for me, very high fat isn't as satiating as it seems to be for others and results in too high calories and weight gain.

Well he was explaining a few things:

1.) Insulin not only causes you to store fat, but the presence of insulin causes you to retain fat. No insulin in the blood = no fat being stored and no fat being retained.
2.) He was saying that sometimes people take in 4,000 calories a day on low carb and wonder why they don't lose. And he was pointing out basically that if all you do is sit all day you can't expect to lose weight taking in more calories than your body needs.

Longer quote:

"...if youwant to lose weight, you have to watch the calories - even on a low carbohydrate diet- particularliy if you are a small person. Remember low-carbohydrate intake means a lower insulin level; and, a lower insulin level means that you can easily unload fat from your fat cells. But, if your body has no need to use any of the fat from your fat cells because it has more than enough fat to meet all its needs coming in from your diet, it's not going to go after your stored fat, and you won't lose weight. To lose weight, you've got to create an energy deficit to bring about a reasonable weight loss. For the vast majority of people, simply following a low-carbohydrate diet will easily create enough of a calorie deficit to bring about a reasonable weight loss. But small people have to be careful because they can easily eat enough calories despite keeping their carbohydrate intake low to meet their small caloric needs without ever creating a defcit." (Eades page 51)

Excuse typos, I'm trying to get off to bed at a reasonable hour, lol.

The problem as I see it is that everyone talks about watching calories and staying under a certain number, but that number is very individual. Who's to say what my magic number is? And wouldn't it change depending on the macronutrient ratio I was consuming? Because my body was using them differently?

So, what he says makes perfect sense, as does most of what he says. I just don't think you can quantify it, except on a personal level.

And I don't think he intends for anyone to quantify it except on a personal level and only when they need to do so, i.e. when they aren't losing.

I know what mine is.

EXACTLY!! Everything that passes through your lips and into your stomach does NOT turn into energy that you then measure by the caloric content. The Drs. Eades in PP & PPLP point out that you require protein every day to replace that which you “loose” everyday. The skin, lining of the digestive tract, the hair and the nails all use up protein, not to mention the protein that gets used up in the various other processes required for the body to function to stay alive. This protein is NOT used for energy, so to count it in the “energy use” equation would result in an erroneous result. Remember that the Drs. Eades start out with having you determine your minimum protein requirement per day. Then you add fat, which can be burned OR be incorporated into the new replacement cell walls, so even it cannot be counted fully in the “energy use” equation. Carbohydrates, which should be limited, are the ONLY macronutrient that is used ONLY for energy.

Yes, it must be determined by your “individual” mix of macronutrients. So that is why PP/PPLP so appeals to me. They give you the basic principles of a healthy diet and then give you the “freedom” to “customize” it to your own bodies needs.

I need to add, that excess protein becomes available for conversion into glucose which then gets used for energy OR stored as fat, the thing most are trying to burn off. So PP/PPLP is NOT a license to eat ALL the protein you want, as many people have found by getting stalled by too much protein in their diet. Likewise, too much fat will limit the utilization of your bodies fat stores. But I also have a vague memory of reading that dietary fat absorption has some regulation to it such that if you have sufficient available in the blood the absorption is reduced and the excess passes on. Or it could be simply that large amounts of fat in the diet overwhelm the guts ability to absorb it all thus the excess passes on. So then excess dietary fat would not cause you to gain (with low carbohydrates keeping the insulin level low) but would also would not allow you to loose any of your fat stores.

PP/PPLP then is a “balancing” act between the amounts of protein and fat, together with the carbohydrates you eat in your “veggies”, that you have to experiment with to find the right mix. AND that mix will change as you loose (or gain) weight as well as get older.

Sorry, but I've got news for you that I've found out over the years. Hormones play the most important part in weight loss. Now that I'm 51 and in menopause my hormones have made it almost impossible to lose weight. I used to lose weight like drop 10 pounds in a month, simply by giving up meat and eating ovolacto vegetarian. Now I tried doing that and I gained weight! The only way I've been able to lose is low carb. I am following a semi vegetarian low carb, and no grains (I'm gluten intolerant anyway) so, I'm pretty happy that at least I'm losing. I lost 7 pounds in 4 weeks. I hope I can keep up the pace..
I was losing on CAD but since the hormones, it's been too hard and I had too many weeks of no weight loss at all, so I decided to go with the regular 33-35.

I think the bottom line is that there are many factors in weight loss/maintenance/gain, and it's not as simple as carb intake, calorie deficit, or hormone regulation. All 3 of these factors, plus others such as food sensitivities and allergies, nutrient deficiencies, gut health, etc, all interact with each other.

I think there are more ways to cause the body not to call on it's fat stores, and not just total calorie intake.

About 4 weeks ago, I came out of a 5 week "dry spell," where I was bouncing around the same 5-6 pounds. When I decreased the protein (still staying above my PP minimum) and increased the fat intake, and total calories stayed about the same I started to lose again. So clearly, at least in my case, it's not about "total calories" or even surpassing a fat gram number. It appears that it was the combination of protein and fat that stopped me cold. (I've never tested the more protein/less fat combination of keeping calories the same to see what that does...hmmm...maybe I should see what happens if I do that.)

We all know that the body doesn't handle all types of calories in the same way, and I've proven it to myself over the last 4 weeks.

The 4000 calorie example is extreme and I can't believe he didn't choose and example of something more common, like 2500 calories, to illustrate his point. That example meant nothing to me when I first read the book, b/c I knew it didn't apply to me. However, if it had said 2500, I would have taken notice, b/c that is a calorie number I can easily hit on a daily basis if I allow myself too, eating unrestricted protein and fat. (I haven't tested it out with the high-fatting to see if I could still lose on 2500 calories, but I would like to, but it would be pretty hard to do.)

I agree Ruth. There are a lot of factors involved but I think as one gets older the factors play a bigger part. At 51 and in menopause, I was frantic because no matter what I did my weight kept creeping up! My friend at work who is quite thin said she never had a weight problem, in fact she was underweight most of her life, until she went into menopause and she gained about 15 pounds a year!
If you want to understand what role hormones play, read Dr. Schwarzbein's books. She is an Endocrinologist. She said at my stage of life, low carb is the only way to lose weight. I didn't want to accept that and I kept trying low fat, low fat, shakes, nutrisystem...All I got was hungry. I finally gave up and went on the low carb. What works best is spreading out the carbs. When I went on CAD, I would tend to binge too much. I think it's a pretty good way to be on maintenance though. The weight loss is very slow. I like PP and I would have gone to see the Eades if they didn't practice in CO!