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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

Agreed.



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.



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



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.



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.

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.

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?

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 .


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.


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.


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.

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)


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.

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

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...

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

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