Eepobee, you didn't have a huge amount to lose. I'd guess that for those who have to lose large amounts, although they may not have to worry about calories at first, it will become a concern in the long run. I think we get used to eating a certain amount at a high weight, but continue to eat that amount out of habit as our weight decreases. At some point we have to realize that we don't need as much food. I know I'm often guilty of "wanting to eat" when I'm not "hungry", and although I eat low carb and therefore can get away with eating more than if I pig out on carbs, I still need to learn to listen to my body and determine if I am really hungry or just have the munchies. I think this is what Atkins if referring to by "Satisfied, but not stuffed". Possibly if we only eat when truly hungry calories do not need to be "counted".

yes, i do. i refer again to the feinman and fine article where they summarized some of the studies on lc diets. the sondike study showed that on a 1830-calorie lc diet, participants lost an average of a 9.9 kg (22 .lbs) over 12 weeks. those on an 1100-calore hc diet lost only 4.4kg over the same period.

so yes, if it takes 3000 calories on a hc diet to maintain weight, than i think this woman could lose 2 lbs/week by switching to an lc diet without reducing calorie intake.

And now, after losing 115 lbs, and weighing 185, I should STILL not have to lower my caloric intake? I should still be able to eat 3000 calories a day (as long as it's low-carb) and lose weight?

You are saying calories never come into play? Ever?

I can guarantee you that if I ate 3000 calories a day right now, even if it's low-carb, I'd be gaining weight.

I've been tracking my calories in and out since Feb '04, and have enough data to be sure that if I ate 3000 calories per day and kept exercising at my current level, I'd gain 65.7 lbs in the next year.

Lynda

Your link above makes what I consider to be the same mistake you are making - it says that if you accept the idea that there is a metabolic advantage to low-carbing (or in their article, metabolic inefficiency) then the statement 'a calorie is a calorie' is incorrect.

It's possible (and probably more accurate) to believe that a calorie is a calorie and also that there is a metabolic advantage to low-carbing. There is a limit as to the metabolic advantage that can be produced by switching the macronutrient make up of a diet. There must be a point at which the metabolism is as inefficient as it can possibly get and there is no further room for increased caloric expenditure by the body, and if calories are consumed that are above that amount of expenditure, even if they are low-carb calories, the person will gain weight.

I agree calories are not the only consideration, but I haven't seen anything yet (including your references) to convince me it has NO bearing on weight loss in the presense of a low-carb diet.

And I'd like to add to Val's comment with this: If you take the time and effort to keep very good calorie in/out records, you'd be really surprised at just how predictive the good old 3500 calories per pound really is.

Here's 630 days of data:

Calories eaten: 1,380,960
Calories burned: 1,582,560

Total deficit: 201,600

Predicted weight loss: 57.6 lbs



Start weight: 208.21
End weight: 150.93

Weight loss: 57.26



Given numbers like that, I'm not going to start slopping extra cream and butter on my dinner in the hopes that there will be some magic metabolic advantage that's going to make those calories not count for me.

I like the comparison to money and savings accounts, and I think that there probably is a metabolic advantage that's a lot like bank interest on your savings account. It's there, but it sure doesn't add up to very much when compared your income and spending habits.

Lynda

How did you know the number of calories burnt?

I used Fitday PC, and set my "normal day" starting point to 8 hours of sleep and 16 hours of light seated activity.

Then I wear my pedometer all day, which measures calories of step activity and elapsed time, and enter step based calories using a custom activity I set up at 5 calories per minute. (That's my average burn rate for step based activities.) Fitday PC recalculates my day's calorie burn so that I only get credit for the calories burned above and beyond my background "normal" day.

If I have a day where I do significant activity that won't register on a pedometer (like an hour of biking), I take of my pedometer and enter an hour of biking into my activity log.

Between my background "normal day", my pedometer, and logging any big special calorie burners, I end up with a pretty decent measure of what I'm burning.

I don't measure tiny stuff like lowering the thermostat to 65 and not wearing a sweater, calorie burn from chewing bubble gum or combing my hair, or added body weight from wearing a heavy coat in the winter. All of that stuff does count, but not anywhere near as much as real whole body activity. (The tiny stuff counts about as much as carrying a full cup of coffee in your car would affect your highway gas mileage.) I just make sure to be very consistent in catching all of my major activity every day.

Lynda

You know, just read some interesting studies about this. Apparently you get an increase in appetite from cold weather that more than offsets any additional calories you burn. I'll try to find the link.

Here it is, the study abstracts are embedded in this thread: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fo...ead.php?t=10197

Thanks. If there was any reason I disagree with you it would be because it should depend on the metabolism too. Different people have different metabolisms and also our bodies can change our metabolisms as they see necessary.

Concerning low carb diet, I think most of the metabolic advantage happens during the first few months of the diet when our bodies waste plenty of ketones. After that, if there was any advantage it should be no more than 100 calories a day.

The value of Atkins diet is not in the metabolic advantage. There are two benefits in Atkins diet:

(1) It can be combined with a low calorie diet to make it easier just like you do.

(2) If you allow yourself to eat all the food your body wants while keeping your carb intake low, you will see the other benefit. Your weight will go up to a specific amount then stops and stays the same forever.

Epobee,

do me a favor and don't ever embark on a career in science journalism, because you really have no idea how to get your facts right.

Re the Stefannson and Anderson Bellevue Hospital experiment, you write that they ate:

"hmmm...a pound and a third of lean meat per day (1 1/3 lbs = 600 grams = 2400 calories) + a half pound of fat (.5 lbs. = 225 grams = 2000 calories) = 4400 calories/day. they both lost weight."

Crikey…

I have the paper right here (JAMA, July 6, 1929; 93 (1): 20-23), and it says, I quote:

"Steffansson averaged about 2,650 calories a day…Anderson averaged about 2,620 calories a day."

Hmmm…

These guys were not highly active during the study (not that you would know, because you obviously have not read it)--if they had consumed the 4400 calories/day figure that you pulled out of goodness knows where, they would have put on weight REAL QUICK!!

You write:

"however, if you look at kekwick's study, you'll see that those on 1000-calorie high-carb diet, did not lose weight. in this case, there was a calorie-deficit, but no weight loss. how do you reconcile that with the laws of thermodynamics? would you suggest that these people were expending less than 1000-calories/day? or maybe this wasn't "tightly-controlled" enough."

You stoop to the shady practice of selective citation when you cite Kekwick and Pawan's study, which you claim showed no weight loss on a cal-restricted low-fat diet. You ignore the dozens of trials that HAVE shown weight loss on such a diet!

The Kekwick and Pawan trial, although a favorite citation of low-carb supporters, is one of the great garbage weight loss trials of all time--it really tells us nothing of value, because it was a very short, poorly-controlled affair.

The authors even went to the unusual step of complaining about the very poor compliance of the subjects in their paper, writing that the study participants would "…cheat and lie, obtaining food from visitors, from trolleys touring the wards, and from neighbouring patients…the results we report are selected…"

This is your support for your dissent of the importance of the calorie equation? A single poorly-controlled study from the 1950's?!

Furthermore, the 1000-calorie portion of the experiment lasted only 7 days. It has been shown repeatedly since that water loss accounts for the bulk of the difference in weight loss between hi-carb and low-carb diets during this time…again you wouldn't know that because you simply have not taken the time to scrupulously examine the literature, have you? My advice…take a break from spouting unfounded nonsense on this otherwise fine forum, locate your nearest medical library, and start familiarizing yourself with the literature!

You also write:

"as far as uncovering tightly-controlled clinical trials that demonstrate weight-loss without calorie deficit, forget it. first, show me a tightly-controlled clinical trial that demonstrates weight-loss with a calorie deficit."

You want trials showing weight loss with calorie restriction? I can't believe you even need to ask for this, but what the heck, here are some, hopefully you'll bother to take the advice I just gave above, track these studies down and actually read them:

Baron JA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low fat/high fiber diets for weight loss. American Journal of Public Health, 1986; 76 (11): 1293-1296.

Wadden TA. Treatment of obesity by moderate and severe caloric restriction. Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1993; 119 (7, Pt. 2): 688-693.

Foreyt JP, Goodrick GK. Evidence for success of behavior modification in weight loss and control. Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1993; 119 (7, Pt. 2): 698-701.

Alford BB, et al. The effects of variations in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1990; 90: 534-540.

Racette SB, et al. Effects of aerobic exercise and dietary carbohydrate on energy expenditure and body composition during weight reduction in obese women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1995; 61: 486-494.

Golay A, et al. Weight-Loss With Low or High Carbohydrate Diet? International Journal of Obesity, 1996; 20 (12): 1067-1072.

Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1996; 63: 174-178.

Lean ME, et al. Weight loss with high and low carbohydrate 1200 kcal diets in free living women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Apr. 1997; 51 (4): 243-248.

Torbay N, et al. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet in treatment of obese normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic subjects. Nutrition Research, May 2002; 22 (5): 587-598.

Layman DK, et al. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. Journal of Nutrition, 2003; 133: 411-417.

Layman DK. The role of leucine in weight loss diets and glucose homeostasis. Journal of Nutrition, 2003; 133: 261S-267S.

Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, March 2003; 142: 253-258.

Volek JS, et al. Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet. Metabolism, July 2002; 51 (7): 864-870.

Brehm, et al. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003; 88 (4): 1617-1623.

Wien MA, et al. Almonds vs complex carbohydrates in a weight reduction program.. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, Nov 2003; 27 (11): 1365-1372.

Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2082-2090.

Samaha FF, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet as compared with a low fat diet in severe obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, May 22, 2003; 348: 2074-2081.

Stern L, et al. The Effects of Low-Carbohydrate versus Conventional Weight Loss Diets in Severely Obese Adults: One-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2004; 140: 778-785.

Yancy WS, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet versus a Low-Fat Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2004; 140: 769-777.

Johnston CS, et al. High-protein, low-fat diets are effective for weight loss and favorably alter biomarkers in healthy adults. Journal of Nutrition, Mar, 2004; 134 (3): 586-591.

Puhleeez, get your facts right…

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

Hey Anthony, nice to see you here again. So glad you commented on that Kekwick study because it always really bugged the heck out of me. It just made no sense.

Good point;
I think people train themselves to over eat. They come to view any feeling but "not hungry" or "very full" as uncomfortable. Result? They eat more as a natural process and find it hard to lose weight.

I think when starting a diet people should err in favor of "empty" for a number of days; learn what real hunger feels like. Under eating for months to lose all the weight has helped me tremendously with this. I actually find feeling too full uncomfortable, in much the same way being too hungry feels uncomfortable. It didn't bother me that much back when I was intake-indifferent.

ItsTheWoo has made a very good point...people nowadays routinely eat out of habit/social practice rather than genuine hunger...with caloric overconsumption the inevitable result.

I often advise my clients to reacquaint themselves with the feeling of genuine hunger...many actually take delight in learning to eat only when truly hungry, it gives them a sense of empowerment, and they do not feel full and bloated all the time as often occurs on the "eat every 2 hours" nonsense (another big myth...).

Low-carb diets greatly facilitate the above practice, because they really do favorably affect satiety. Makes it a lot easier for people to reign in their food intake, eat only when truly hungry and...dare I say it...establish a calorie deificit!!

And Nancy, thanks, and yeah, it frustrates me to see the Pekwik and Kawan study cited when there are so much better, more recent trials to report on...

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

Mandra

Thanks for the quote. I think the main problem is that nobody really understands how our metabolism works. Not even Dr. Atkins. We get all hung up on details, especially if things aren't going well for us. We try to find a way and usually we find one that works for us.

But I think we should remember that if it weren't for Dr. Atkins going through what he went through when he wrote his first book in 1972, and his perseverance when all the power of organized medicine was against him, we probably would still be eating low fat twinkies.

We owe this guy a debt of gratitude, in my opinion. I know I owe him my improved health.