Epobee,

First of all, I make no apologies whatsoever for the tone of my reply. I stated a simple physiological fact on my web site--that weight loss will not occur without a calorie deficit--and I am then subjected to the antics of people like yourself; people who, out of knee-jerk reaction, accusing me of saying things I did not, who accuse me of "neglecting" to mention things I have in fact clearly and repeatedly underscored in my writings, who cite shoddy evidence and attempt to impress their fellow forum posters by citing studies they clearly have never even read. After spending most of your time in this thread disputing what I say, you now acknowledge that calories ARE important, that they DO count!

Your sensibilities have evidently been offended by the tone of my replies. Gee, I didn't see you jump on your high moral horse and berate Abd for falsely accusing me of acting out of testosterone-fueled irrationalism and being dishonest…I guess forum etiquette doesn't matter to you when someone who agrees with you acts like a "jack**ss" towards someone you don't agree with, does it?

Now, let me address some of your latest claims:

First of all, you resort to Abd's tactics by insinuating dishonesty on my part when you write:

"i noticed you cut out "a considerable number of known failure in discipline being discarded". perhaps you should change your slogan from "just the facts" to "just the facts that support my argument", huh?"

I deliberately included the line "The results we report are selected", because for any serious researcher, this would have been enough. Silly me, I clearly forgot I was liaising with someone who is anything but a serious researcher. I f you were, you would know that selectively presenting the data from a study represents a major flaw in that study. The omission of "a considerable number of known failures in discipline being discarded" was not duplicitous on my part--and if I did include it, it would have merely underscored the fact that this trial was a sloppy, poorly-controlled affair.

You then write:

"if you read my last post again, you'll note that i asked you to provide me with a tightly-controlled clinical trial that demonstrates weight-loss with a calorie deficit, not calorie restriction. as i noted in that post, the reason you can't do this is because accurately measuring energy expenditure is very difficult and is rarely, if ever, done in combination with weight loss studies. therefore, i find your request for a tightly-controlled clinical trial that demonstrates weight-loss without a calorie deficit disingenuous."

I guess I really was hoping for too much when I asked you to actually READ these studies!!

First of all, in some of these studies the researchers did in fact calculate the subjects' estimated daily energy output, and then assigned diets whose caloric content was below this estimated output. These estimates are calculated using formulas based on energy expenditure studies performed in metabolic wards. While this approach is obviously not the same as directly measuring the caloric expenditure of each and every subject, these formulas have been shown to be reliable and accurate with a very small margin of error for the majority of folks.

In other studies, the researchers have utilized "run-in" periods where the subjects, before commencing the weight loss portion of the trial, are placed on maintenance calorie diets to stabilize their weight. The subjects calorie expenditures are estimated, then they are assigned diets designed to stabilize their weight. Their weight does maintain stable because, as you now seem to acknowledge, calories DO count!!!

The caloric content of the subsequent weight loss diets are then calculated so that they deliver a caloric deficit…the subjects follow these diets, and lose weight…again, because calories DO count!!!

"i contend that there is a third way to increase calorie expediture without calorie restriction or increased physical activity; namely by changing the macronutrient content of your diet. do you agree or disagree with this assertion?"

I have written numerous times on my web site that protein increases thermogenesis…this is hardly a big secret. However, the extra caloric expenditure really is minimal…while every little bit of extra caloric expenditure helps, I wouldn't rely on increased thermogenesis alone to achieve weight loss. If you read the original article that started this whole hoo-ha, you'll see that I mention that I use numerous other "tips and tricks" to optimize the fat loss process--increased protein intake is one of them. The real benefit of increasing protein intake at the expense of carbohydrate is that it improves glycemic control, promotes anabolism, and favors the loss of fat rather than muscle.

"…and if calorie restriction and/or increased physical activity are such a crucial part of weight loss, why do people studied on ad libitum lc diet invariably lose weight?"

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this? Numerous researchers have shown--starting with Yudkin back in the 1960s--that even when told to eat ad libitum, low-carb dieters reduce their calorie intake…

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

Epobee,

if you can't be bothered to read the studies I have cited, there's still an experiment that can readily be performed to verify that calorie restriction below maintenance levels indeed results in weight loss.

You will not be able to dispute the results of this experiment, because you will conduct it YOURSELF.

Here's what you can do: Don't eat anything today. Don't eat anything tommorrow. Nor the day after. In fact, for the next four weeks, don't ingest anything but water and oxygen.

I can assure you without any hesitation whatsoever, you will be ingesting less calories than what you are expending. I am sure even you will agree that to claim the body will revert to a "negative" calorie expenditure under conditions of zero calorie intake, is beyond absurd.

I can also assure you without any hesitation whatsoever, that you WILL lose weight: LOTS of weight...

After you have emaciated yourself, take my original challenge (which, despite the veracity of criticism I have been subject to--no-one has yet answered), and have your new metabolic output determined (RMR+total physical activity+thermic effect of food) by a qualified researcher. Have a professional dietitian, using USDA food database values, design a ZERO carb diet that delivers a clear and significant excess of calories above and beyond what you now burn each day.

Geez, if you do not lose weight during the fasting portion of this experiment, and then gain weight during the refeed portion, I won't only skate down Chapel Street in my birthday suit, I'll rollerblade in a similar state from Melbourne to Perth!!!

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

Epobee,

If you don't like the idea of total fasting, here's another experiment you can perform for yourself:

For the next few weeks, consume nothing but 150 grams (=600 calories) of glucose per day (even if you spend all day in bed, I can just about guarantee your total daily energy expenditure is more than 600 cals per day. If not, you must either be miniscule in stature or one very ill individual). You may very well stay out of ketosis, but you will LOSE weight.

After you have lost significant amounts of weight on this 100% CARBOHYDRATE diet, and rest assured it won't take long, then start religiously consuming a 3,500 calorie per day low-carb, hi-protein, hi-fat diet, formulated by a professional dietitian to deliver zero carbohydrates.

Again, you can be rest assured that you will weigh more at the end of the hi-calorie, low-carb portion of this experiment than after the low-calorie, hi-carb portion.

Calories DO count: They always have and, until man finds a way to subvert the laws of nature, they always will.

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

That's true; I found counting cals very very useful to get weight down.

But I also recognize that I really don't start gaining lots of fat by eating more than the point at which I start to lose. My metabolism increases, for one, and second of all the tissue built is by no means mostly fat (like it is with carbs).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, there is no "check book like certainty" with weight. It's not like a simple arithmetic equation people wish it was (I'm sure there is a formula that could calculate weight loss & gain; but it would probably be beyond the scope of most of our logical comprehension)

Furthermore, all the variables mean HUGE differences in the reliability of using calorie intake to predict change in fat stores (from loss, to maintain, to gain). Like if you are maintaining on 1600 cals on a LC diet, it's not necessarily true to say you will start to gain fat at 1700. In fact I would say it's likely you would probably not, if you maintain on a level that low it's likely your body has lost a lot of lean tissue and is seriously conserving; feeding it better would allow it to "come back to life" more. At least this is what happened for me. For example, when I stuff myself on LC food like nuts and meat, I do gain weight... but it's mostly non-fat tissue. My arms feel hard and strong, I can see abs clearly even though I do no conditioning exercises. OTOH, when I eat much less but let my blood sugar swing like a menacing ball, you betcha I can expect fluffier thighs hips and belly; that whole mid/lower body area takes a puffiness. Figure that out.

I mean there is some reasonable certainty. It's certain if you eat very little you'll lose lots of tissue (including fat). It's certain if you gorge yourself you'll gain tissue (including fat). From those two absolutes, everything else is uncertain.

Totally agree.


My boss gained 100 lbs in a year after Depoprovera.
Reading up on it, depoprovera basically causes (or encourages preexisting tendencies toward) insulin resistance & hyperinsulinemia. Mystery solved.

ntz, i'm not just now acknowledging that calories count. from my first post on this thread:

let me be clear on my view of weight loss. i do believe that in order to lose weight there must be a calorie deficit and that if we very accurately measure energy expenditure during a tightly-controlled clinical trial we would find that when people lose weight they expend more than the consume. i also believe that if energy expenditure was accuratley measured during a truly low-carb (<50g/d) weight loss study, we would find that with all other factors being equal, energy expenditures would be higher in those placed on low-carb plans.

by definition, an ad libitum diet means that there are no restrictions on eating. in ad libitum low-carb diet studies, the only restriction is on carbohydrate intake. if we accept that people studied under these conditions invariably lose weight without increasing physical activity, we must reject the notion that only calorie restriction and increased physicaly activity create calorie deficits.

i also know that for many people, ad libitum lc diets will not be effective over the long run and at some point there will be a need for calorie restriction and/or increased physical activity. but this doesn't deny the fact that when you replace a high-carb diet with a low-carb diet, you are increasing energy output through increased thermogenesis (if you increase protein intake) and through increased protein turnover to supply the amino acids required for gluconeogenesis. so, if at a given caloric intake weight loss has ceased on a lc diet, i believe that at the same caloric intake weight gain would occur if a hc/lf diet is resumed.

i agree woo, there are still factors involved in energy balance that are not understood. i think this is a big area for future research. in particular, i'm interested to see what metabolically and physically happens to people in the overfed state of lc diets.

Hi,
I agree. I've come to feel that in so far as health is concerned weight goals are misguided. The weight takes care of itself when one is eating and living healthy; anything extra is makeup. Healthy weight is when you feel good and all indicators show you are healthy. Healthy weight is not something achieved by consciously depriving yourself of food. Not to say trying to reach a weight goal is inherently unhealthy (that would be super hypocritical of me ); just pointing out that it's an aesthetic issue, a preference isolated from health.

In fact, I think weight suppression can be less healthy than simply accepting a naturally heavier size. It depends on the magnitude of suppression I suppose. If it causes a lot of mental stress to do it, and the weight is very much abnormal to your body (evidence by signs of it fighting it like amenorrhea or chronic coldness and so on)... then "goal weight" is actually not a healthy venture.

Also I think those who have had weight problems are naturally heavier than those who've not - even when eating a diet that controls & corrects the original source of weight gain (example, someone with carbohydrate sensitivity & obesity now low carbing). My theory is obesity is a disease; like developing type 2 diabetes, this aspect of insulin damage is irreversible. Hyperinsulinemia & rapidly upward spiraling weight causes the body to make new fat cells which increase amount of absolute fat mass the body must hold for ideal health. This is why in the TDC almost all of us find LC stops the gain, and almost all of us find LC allows us to reduce a good part of our obesity without effort... but then we plateau out at high-norm or low obese weight.

Speaking personally I really do strongly believe in the "excess fat cell" theory behind why weight reduction/normal weight maintenance is so difficult (or even unnatural) for the ex-obese. It explains a lot for me (why my upper body is so emaciated looking even though my lower body looks "chubby" with fat). For my size I feel my body behaves as if it is much thinner. Once you've made all those fat cells you're stuck with 'em (at least, for a long while anyway).

Of course you never had an extreme weight problem but it's possible it was enough that it could prevent you from having a BMI within normal range without consciously attempting to under eat.

I was under the impression that starvation puts on in a hypermetabolic condition.

Though initially extremely depressed, metabolic rate rapidly rebounds once food is successfully reintroduced.
Having lost so much essential tissues (muscle fat bone skin/collegen etc) creates a greater demand for food. Even large feedings are not enough to create caloric excess; the more they eat the more the body sucks it up to either rebuild WITH (amino acids/fatty acids) or to fuel the rebuilding process (sugar). It's like being a teeny little body builder .

In fact, gain of lean essential tissues may not even be reflected in gain of mass (weight). Edema is common in severe restriction (from protein deficiency). It's possible that the loss of fluid would counter the gain of healthy tissue.

Many eating disordered individuals report they my even initially lose when begining recovery, despite eating thousands of calories, due to these phenomena.

So it seems your experiment would only provide further evidence that changes in weight and body composition cannot be reasonably predicted by present metabolic rate & controlling energy intake alone.

I think it would be better if the order of these experiments were reversed. If he starved himself first, then consumed extra calories, the weight gain would be attributed to "starvation mode," not the extra calories.

Fascinating thread. And contrary to what people here are now claiming, I certainly have seen the idea that calories matter disputed many, many times, here and elsewhere, so it's refreshing to see (almost) everyone agreeing that they do, in fact, matter. The most common form of the argument is the "starvation mode" thing, and I guarantee you if I did a search on this web page, I would find at least one reference to it in the past two days, if not a lot more than one.

Anyway, I think what's needed is a model of weight gain. The obvious one is W = C - E, where W is weight, C is calories consumed, and E is calories expended. But the problem here is, people seem to get confused with the calories consumed and expended part -- because protein is known to be an inefficient energy source, some people assume that the model itself is invalid, which ain't true. The terms just need to be visually fleshed out to demonstrate the relative efficiencies of the different macronutrients. In other words, maybe 2500 calories of pure protein isn't the same as 2500 calories of pure sugar, but you can demonstrate this by showing it in the terms. So the "C" (calories) term in the model above might look like this: C = 4 x Carb + 9 x Fat + 3.9 x Protein. It's crude, but it gets the idea across if you're used to modeling. And of course, the E term has its own component parts as well: your weight, how active you are, your (unique?) BMR, and so on. If everyone had an accurate model like this, as does Lynda (UpTheHill) in this thread, weight loss and gain would make a whole lot more sense, and be a lot easier.

how many times do i have to repeat myself? calorie reduction IS NOT calorie restriction. it seems you're missing the subtle, but significant, aspects of this debate.

i think the point you were orginally trying to make is valid; some people will need to employ calorie restriction and/or increased physical activity at some point. however, you got so caught up in defeating a straw man (calories don't count), that you overlooked the fact that atkins, barry groves, and other lc authors never said calories don't count; they said you don't need to count calories. you also neglected to mention the metabolic advantages of an lc diet in your argument. in other places on your website, you do mention some of the metabolic factors, but failed to do it in the discussion at hand. perhaps in an attempt to make your point you thought omitting these factors from the equation was trivial. if you haven't noticed yet, i disagree.

just to help get a better understanding of the degree to which the composition of diet can effect energy output through thermogenesis, i'll add this from feinman and fine's "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics:

Inefficiency
The second law was developed in the context of the industrial revolution and the attempt to understand the efficiency of machines. The law describes the theoretical limits on the efficiency of engines and applies as well to living (irreversible) systems. The second law says that no machine is completely efficient. Some of the available energy is lost as heat and in the internal rearrangement of chemical compounds and other changes in entropy. In other words, although the first law holds even in irreversible processes – energy is still conserved – the second law says that something is lost, something is unrecoverable. The efficiency of a machine is dependent on how the machine works and, for a biochemical machine, the nature of the fuel and the processes enlisted by the organism. A simple example is the inefficiency of low-test gasoline in high compression gasoline engines. If a "calorie is a calorie" were true, nobody would pay extra for high test gasoline. (The calorimeter values of a gasoline will be the same whether or not it contains an antiknock compound). In weight loss diets, of course, inefficiency is desirable and is tied to hormonal levels and enzyme activities



Efficiency and thermogenesis
In nutrition, one component of inefficiency is measured in thermogenesis (thermic effect of feeding), or the heat generated in processing food. There is a large literature on this subject and the general conclusion, as summarized in a recent review by Jéquier [15], is that thermic effects of nutrients is approximately 2–3 % for lipids, 6–8 % for carbohydrates, and 25–30% for proteins. It is interesting that this data itself might be enough to explain metabolic advantage. Here we took the average of Jéquier's values (2.5, 7 and 27.5 % for fat, CHO and protein) and calculated the effective energy yield for a 2000 kcal diet. If we assume a diet composition of CHO:fat: protein of 55:30:15, within the range of commonly recommended diets, the calculated effective yield is 1848 kcal. We now consider the effect of reducing carbohydrate progressively and substituting the calories removed equally between fat and protein. Figure 2 shows that the wasted calories due to thermogenesis increase as carbohydrate is reduced and reach 100 kcal at 21 % carbohydrate. This value of 100 kcal is recommended by several professionals as the goal for daily weight reduction (e.g. [16]). Notably, at 8 % CHO, the value for the early phase of the Atkins [17], South Beach [18] or Protein Power diets [19], 140 kcalories are lost as heat. Now, there will be metabolic accommodations and one can't predict that the ratios will stay the same over a long term diet, but the calculations show that the possibility of metabolic advantage should not come as a surprise.

Recommendations for fighting obesity frequently call for small reductions in calories [16]. In fact, given the resistance of steady state systems to small perturbations it is doubtful that this is a promising strategy. Nonetheless, taking the goal at face value, if it could be achieved by a simple change in macronutrient composition, such a method would seem worthy of serious consideration. The arguments above show that such a phenomenon is possible. There are plausible arguments for how it could take place and substantial experimental evidence for its occurrence [4].

Conclusions
A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general principle would be a violation of the second law. Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true "miraculous metabolic effect" – but it is subject to many exceptions. The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law. The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

The analysis above might be said to be over-kill although it is important, intellectually, not to invoke the laws of thermodynamics inappropriately. There are also, however, practical consequences. The seriousness of the obesity epidemic suggests that we attack it with all the means at our disposal. Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature. It does not always occur but the important point is that it can occur. To ignore its possibilities and to not investigate the precise conditions under which it appears would be cutting ourselves off from potential benefit. The extent to which metabolic advantage will have significant impact in treating obesity is unknown and it is widely said in studies of low carbohydrate diets that "more work needs to be done." However, if the misconception is perpetuated that there is a violation of physical laws, that work will not be done, and if done, will go unpublished due to editorial resistance. Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start.

Anthony, I recieve your newsletter, and really enjoy your site. I'm interested in your views on diet composition and bodybuilding. You've written that you'll discuss cyclical diets sometime in the future.... ?? Have you done so, and I just missed it?

Epobee,

"let me be clear on my view of weight loss. i do believe that in order to lose weight there must be a calorie deficit and that if we very accurately measure energy expenditure during a tightly-controlled clinical trial we would find that when people lose weight they expend more than the consume."

So why all the fuss???? Why am I being attacked for saying that calories DO count? Why am I being so vociferously attacked for saying a calorie deficit is required for weight loss??

Why did you dispute my contention that clinical trails have observed weight loss under caloric deficit conditions??

"…i also believe that if energy expenditure was accuratley measured during a truly low-carb (<50g/d) weight loss study, we would find that with all other factors being equal, energy expenditures would be higher in those placed on low-carb plans."

Only if protein intake was significantly higher on the low-carb plan (the thermogenic effect of fat is actually lower than that of carbohydrate). More on this below.

"…by definition, an ad libitum diet means that there are no restrictions on eating. in ad libitum low-carb diet studies, the only restriction is on carbohydrate intake. if we accept that people studied under these conditions invariably lose weight without increasing physical activity, we must reject the notion that only calorie restriction and increased physicaly activity create calorie deficits."

Aw, for crying out loud…FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME!!!!!!!…carbohydrate restriction often--BUT NOT ALWAYS--leads to unintentional reductions in caloric intake, due to the satiating effects of such diets. It is this reduction that leads to weight loss! What part of this do you have difficulty grasping?

This has been shown repeatedly in controlled clinical trials, a number of which were featured in the references I gave you. You really have no intention of reading these, do you?

"…i also know that for many people, ad libitum lc diets will not be effective over the long run and at some point there will be a need for calorie restriction and/or increased physical activity."

And this is why I emphasize so heavily the importance of calories and creating a calorie deficit. Most dieters will eventually hit a plateau--an understanding of the reason for this plateau (declining energy expenditure with increasing weight loss) and of the importance of adjusting one's caloric intake/output to account for this change--is critical. Without an understanding of these factors, many dieters will not know how to effectively restart the weight loss process and will ultimately give up in despair. It is for pointing out this simple fact, which many people are totally unaware of, and which is NOT explained in Atkins nor most other popular diet books (Atkins instead thought that a return to super low-carb levels was the key to restarting fat loss; it's not. In the absence of a calorie deficit, carbs can be lowered as much as one wants but no weight loss will occur) that I have been attacked. Fine, go ahead and ignore me…trust Atkins et al instead and believe with all your might that calories don't need to be counted. When you hit a plateau, don't take calories into consideration…but don't come crying to me that you can't drop any more flab.

Please, by all means, go ahead and ignore the importance of calories when the plateau hits…Please, do it your way, if you think you know better…just remember, I'm the one with the 5% body fat levels…While you sit behind your computer pontificating over studies and articles that you have never even read, I'm the one who, out here in the real world, has routinely achieved single digit bodyfat percentages for both myself and those I advise…despite the fact that it is the single digit range that is normally the hardest to break into, due to the body's increasing reluctance to let go of fat and catabolize muscle instead as weight loss progresses…I have to seriously wonder how many of you here who have so enthusiastically ensured me I am wrong, "dishonest", etc, etc have come any where near single digit BF percentages, let alone maintained them for any length of time? I put my money where my mouth is and practice what I preach--I wonder how many of my critics here are prepared to post a photo of their waistline for all the world to see--and display a 5% BF level if they did so?

Armchair experts…you gotta love 'em…

"…but this doesn't deny the fact that when you replace a high-carb diet with a low-carb diet, you are increasing energy output through increased thermogenesis (if you increase protein intake) and through increased protein turnover to supply the amino acids required for gluconeogenesis. so, if at a given caloric intake weight loss has ceased on a lc diet, i believe that at the same caloric intake weight gain would occur if a hc/lf diet is resumed."

If you are trying to say that a low-carb diet favorably impacts upon thermogenesis, you may well be right, BUT only if that diet contains a significant increase in protein content (see the study by Torbay et al, in which total daily energy expenditure dropped on the low protein diet, but stayed the same on the high protein diet). However, weight loss was greater (compared to low-protein) in only one of the 2 high protein groups studied.

I think it is important to emphasize another important point: I am not denying that increased protein intake at the expense of carbohydrate could, in addition to favorably altering the composition of weight loss, increase the magnitude of the total weight loss itself. In fact there are clinical trials that support this very notion. But that protein-induced thermogenesis is responsible for this possibility is doubtful (see papers by Layman from previous post with citations). Rather, the "repartitioning effect of the amino acid leucine and the superior satiating effects of protein are more feasible factors. But even if thermogenesis was a factor, it merely underscores the importance of establishing a claorie deficit, because thermogenesis involves the increased expenditure of calories.

And no, I never said that calorie restriction and exercise are the only ways to establish a calorie deficit--I mentioned in 'Calories DO Count' that ephedrine/caffeine and other thermogenic agents will indeed produce weight loss.

"how many times do i have to repeat myself? calorie reduction IS NOT calorie restriction. it seems you're missing the subtle, but significant, aspects of this debate."

No, it's you and all the others who got all bent of all shape by my comments that are missing the point. Furthermore, your comments on the difference between calorie reduction and calorie restriction is an exercise in semantics; researchers frequently use these terms when referring to the same thing. Whether you "restrict" or "reduce" calories, the goal for successful weight loss is the same--to achieve a calorie deficit.

"i think the point you were orginally trying to make is valid; some people will need to employ calorie restriction and/or increased physical activity at some point. however, you got so caught up in defeating a straw man (calories don't count), that you overlooked the fact that atkins, barry groves, and other lc authors never said calories don't count; they said you don't need to count calories."

And when they say this, they are WRONG, because some people WILL need to count calories. Do you deny this? If so, you are deluded, truly. Firstly, some people will not lower calories sufficiently right off the bat simply by following a low-carb diet. Secondly, many people will need to take calories into account as weight loss slows and then stalls, as it so often does, for the reasons I mentioned above.

I was not, and am not, battling a "straw man" when I make these important and perfectly valid points. I am actually providing information to weight loss hopefuls that could potentially save them from failure and the frustration and angst that often accompanies it.

The day the above authors can routinely pump out clients with sub-6% BF levels, then I will take notice.

"you also neglected to mention the metabolic advantages of an lc diet in your argument. in other places on your website, you do mention some of the metabolic factors, but failed to do it in the discussion at hand. "

Are you serious?!? Clearly, you have not yet discarded your habit of commenting on articles you have never even read! The following is from the "Calories DO Count, Baby!" article:

" The Low-Carbohydrate Advantage

As I stated last week, low-carbohydrate diets routinely produce superior changes in body composition. During weight loss, low-carbohydrate diets tend to stimulate greater fat loss and less muscle breakdown than low-fat/high-carbohydrate diets.

Also, in clinical studies, low-carbohydrate diets are routinely observed to exert superior satiating effects. Trial subjects randomized to low-carb diets--told only to restrict carbs but to eat protein and fat ad libitum--often lower their daily caloric output to the same level as those assigned to low-fat diets, even though it is only the latter who are told to restrict overall calorie intake.

As such, low-carbohydrate diets more easily facilitate the implementation of the most fundamental requirement of a weight loss diet--the reduction of calories to below maintenance levels!"

And this, from "Straight Out of My Inbox 9!":

" 2) Consume a low-carbohydrate, moderate- to high-fat diet.

Both low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets will induce weight loss when calorie intake is reduced below calorie output. However, the composition of that weight loss is far superior when an intelligently-constructed low-carbohydrate diet is employed. Research shows that such a diet maximizes the proportion of weight lost as fat, and greatly inhibits the loss of muscle that typically occurs with weight loss. In contrast, high-carb diets result in greater muscle catabolism and less fat loss. Low-carb diets, provided they contain sufficient fat, maximize the delivery of fats to the muscles and organs for use as fuel; in contrast, high-carbohydrate intakes--via their effects on blood glucose and insulin--promote the storage of fat in adipocytes. Due to this effect of high-carbohydrate diets, under conditions of calorie restriction the body is then forced to breakdown muscle tissue to meet its energy requirements.

Amazingly, despite all the research to the contrary, there are still folks to this day who warn against low-carbohydrate diets because they allegedly cause muscle loss! The only individuals likely to experience this are those who cannot let go of their fat-phobia and attempt to simultaneously follow a low-carbohydrate and low-fat diet. This indeed will cause a rapid loss of muscle; deprive your body of carbs and fats, and you leave it with no other choice but to break down lean tissue for energy.

My own experience is in full accord with the published research; I'm blown away by how much easier it is to maintain that lean, hard look nowadays than when I followed a low-fat diet back in the nineties. This despite the fact that I employed a far higher volume of exercise back then."

" However, this doesn't mean that "a calorie is a calorie", as still claimed by many misguided researchers who should know better. Diets of different macronutrient composition can have a large impact on the type of weight loss, i.e fat vs lean tissue loss. Lean tissue loss is the bane of many dieters. Calorie restricted low-carbohydrate diets (truly low) and higher protein diets have been shown to exert a favorable nutrient-partitioning effect, meaning that the proportionate loss of fat and maintenance or even growth of lean tissue is greater. By increasing the supply of fat to muscles for fuel, instead of the adipocytes for storage, low-carb diets (provided they are moderate to high in fat) minimize the breakdown of muscle for fuel, as often occurs with high-carbohydrate diets.

Increased protein intake can also directly stimulate protein synthesis, exerting an anabolic effect. Layman gives a good rundown of the role of the branched-chain amino acid leucine in stimulating such an effect in:

Layman DK. Protein quantity and quality at levels above the RDA improves adult weight loss. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Dec, 2004; 23 (6 Suppl): 631S-636S.

Low-carb diets also have an advantage when it comes to promoting satiety, further assisting the attainment of calorie restriction. Numerous trials have shown that when low-carbers are told to restrict carbs but eat protein and fat ad libitum, they often still unintentionally lower calories to the same level as those who are told to eat a low-fat diet and to deliberately restrict calories!"

As you can see, it's not that I "neglected to mention the metabolic advantages of an lc diet"…you just neglected to read the damn articles before commenting on them!!!

I think the problem is that you, and others, have reacted in knee-jerk fashion to my writings. You folks seem to forget that I am one of the most enthusiastic supporters of low-carb diets out there. I just don't see the need to spread unfounded BS about them--that does little to accelerate their acceptance by serious researchers and health authorities. Exaggerated and misleading infomercial-like claims for low-carbohydrate diets merely gives their opponents abundant ammunition to denigrate them further.

I never said that low-carbohydrate diets don't have metabolic advantages, they do (and that's why I follow one myself), and I clearly stated that in both of the recent articles that you and others are attacking.

But the reality is that low-carb diets, while maximizing fat loss and minimizing muscle loss during weight loss to occur, do not exempt one from having to establish a calorie deficit in order to lose weight. Just because you didn't have to actively count calories, that does not mean that a calorie deficit did not occur--if you lost weight, you can be sure it did. My whole point is that many people, whether they like it or not, will eventually be forced to acknowledge, and accommodate for the importance of calorie in/calorie out equation. Those who belittle the role of calorie counting, who instead preach that carbohydrate restriction is the primary requirement for weight loss, are doing these folks a huge disservice.

Anthony Colpo
www.theomnivore.com

Well I am a case in point. After losing about 34 lbs by eating less food, and keeping to low GI, I then lost about 6 more by trialling Atkins. I then was sucked in by the don't count calories
hype, ate lc ad libitum, keeping carbs under 50g, and gained back about 15 lbs over a year and a half. Why? Because I was eating many more calories of low carb, high fat than I should have....too many nuts and full fat cheese, cream etc.
So now I have restricted calories, kept to low carb, and have lost the weight. I have little doubt that doing this resulted in what Anthony calls better partitioning...my high protein low cal diet has meant that I have lost mostly fat and less lean than I would have otherwise done on a high carb low cal diet. There is no doubt that my maintenance calories now that I am thinner are a lot lower than they were, and eating ad libitum low carb for me meant eating too much calorie dense fatty food.

I find the fireworks remarkable, and quite revealing. I apologize to all those who are here for information, discussion, and debate on the issues, and not for an eruption of flames. I should know better: people who are under the influence of testosterone almost never respond well to a mention of it. And that *is* all that I did. Mention it as a speculative possibiity. I began the post that drew Mr. Colpo to discussion here with:

"Something, perhaps a burst of testosterone, has convinced Mr. Colpo to make statements that probably he knows are false, were he to be a little more careful."

I'd urge Mr. Colpo to read this carefully. Contrary to what he has repeatedly said subsequently, this did not accuse him of dishonesty. It did not accuse him of attacking low-carb diets. Rather, it noted the *tone* of his writings, which was quite definitely challenging in a way which I find associated with men, in general, and not with women. Indeed, I can think of an exception among women I've known. A woman who had substantial facial hair..., and who thus can be presumed to have relatively high testosterone levels. So I began my criticism of *what he wrote* with a brief speculation as to a possible reason why *in that piece,* he might be using a common form of argument among what might be gently called "assertive males." This is the "If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat" argument; it is essentially an ad-hominem argument being made by the man himself. Were I to claim that Mr. Colpo's arguments were wrong because it was *he* who made them, I'd be making the same kind of argument in reverse, and I think we all recognize the fallacy in that.

Mr. Colpo's response, in which he mostly was diverted from the substance of my criticism into defense and counterattack, remarkably, failed to note the major defect in my post, which was quietly mentioned by another writer here, a mention which, it seems, nobody else has picked up and expanded on. And this defect is the apparent fact -- it is a tad difficult to verify, which explains part of my delay in responding further here -- that food calories, i.e., what is printed on labels, are *not* thermodynamic calories, but have been derived from them by using correction factors *which take into account, theoretically, the differences between foods in metabolic effect*.

*If* the correction factors are being properly applied -- there is a bit of doubt about that -- then "a calorie is a calorie" is correct, but only because the various kinds of calorie have been *made* equivalent through differing correction factors.

Remarkably, I have seen very little direct explanation of what "a calorie is a calorie" is supposed to mean. Obviously, as a statement, it is not of the form "A equals A," or else it would not be so controversial.

In practice, it means that "a calorie of one kind of food is equivalent, for purposes of predicting weight gain or loss, to a calorie of another kind of food." But the whole matter gets enormously confused when appeals to the laws of thermodynamics are used to justify the statement, because food calories are *not* thermodynamic calories, but are, rather, derived from them by *correcting* thermodynamic calories into a weighted calorie, such that, theoretically, a calorie of one kind of food is equivalent to a calorie of another kind of food.

If the correction factors are accurate, and if the method of their determination is directed to effect on weight gain or loss, then "a calorie is a calorie" becomes true simply because the numbers have been fudged to make it true.

However, by not acknowledging *why* "a calorie is a calorie" might be true, the possible defect is swept under the carpet, and this may be exposed by a question:

Are food calorie correction factors determined by measuring weight gain/loss, experimentally, or are they determined by energy conversion efficiency, as predicted or measured experimentally?

Energy conversion efficiency will be related to weight gain/loss, but will not be identical to it. In other words, conversion factors designed to equalize food values from the point of view of available *energy* may not be the same as conversion factors designed for equalizing weight gain/loss (assuming constant activity levels, and the absence of other confounding factors.)

It's *complicated.* It is not nearly as simple an issue as some have made it.



I'll point out that this continues to divert us from the issues, engaging in what, remarkably, Mr. Colpo accuses others of: personal attack. To assume that the writings of others are "knee-jerk" responses is, in this case, to project one's own actions and states onto those others. I don't see that Mr. Colpo was attacked or accused; rather, *something he wrote* was criticized, and not from a knee-jerk response, but rather from substantial objections to precisely what was said. The issue of "a calorie is a calorie" is *not* a simple one, or else we would not see radically contradictory articles in scientific journals. If I have time, I will present some of the results of my research into this, which began with the reference kindly provided by ValerieL, number 29 in this thread. From that source, I did searches on "calorie Atwater," coming up with much of interest, including an article in a major nutritional journal which includes "a calorie is a calorie" in its title, but which is remarkable to me in never explicitly acknowledging the semantic trick in the slogan. Nevertheless, it is an excellent article and should be read by anyone who is interested in this debate. And there is much that remains unresolved for me.

For example, I was unable to find, so far, any *explicit* mention that Atwater-corrected calories are used on food labels. Odd. I found plenty of popular references to calories, about food, which explain calories with reference to full combustion, but *very* little mention of any correction factors, which is why I may have been quite incorrect in the intent of my assertion that "the body is not a bomb calorimeter," even though the body is, indeed, not such a device.

The purpose of my original post in this thread was *not* to attack Mr. Colpo, and I was quite aware that he supports low-carb diets, nor did I imply, to my knowledge, anywhere, that he did not.

But it seems to me that Mr. Colpo has converted the assertion, common among us, that it is not necessary to count calories, into an assertion that calories don't count, in an absolute sense, and he argued most clearly against that assertion, as if it had been made by Atkins and as if we were all saying that. We weren't. Rather, we were saying that from our own experience and, apparently, from the experience of countless others, it is not necessary *usually* to count calories in order to control weight. Indeed, this was Atkins' brilliant discovery, that counting carb grams was *ordinarily* quite sufficient, and far easier.

What happens if a dieter gorges on fat? We don't really know. For one thing, it is quite difficult, fat becomes rapidly unappetizing if overconsumed. I find fat in appropriate quantities to be what makes food taste really good, and I enjoy eating it, i.e., butter, cream, chicken fat -- skin --, fatty meat, etc. But I will eat substantially less fatty meat than I will eat lean meat, so the *effect* may be, among other things, a reduction in caloric intake. Many of those who predicted confidently that the Atkins diet would not work -- in spite of the substantial clinical evidence that must have made Atkins shake his head in wonder -- then explained away experimental proof that it *did* work by speculating that "because the diet is so unappetizing" low-carbers did not eat so much.

The truth in this could be the reduction in net calories consumed, that the diet is unappetizing would only apply to, perhaps, those whose "low carb diet" consisted of faux carbs like some of the Atkins products, not those who followed Atkins' actual advice, consuming a wide variety of what I find to be delicious foods, especially when well-prepared. It is quite difficult, I find, to stay on an Atkins diet with readily-available convenience foods, which have been designed to be high-carb. I have found it necessary to learn to cook, and especially to learn to cook *well*. One more benefit for which I can thank Dr. Atkins, may he rest in peace.



Mr. Colpo is astonished by this because he thinks we have been saying that caloric content is irrelevant, that weight loss will occur simply by restricting carbs *no matter what else the person eats*. Which is, as I pointed out, a straw man argument. We never said that. Rather, we say, simply, that for the large majority of people who wish to lose weight, counting calories is not necessary. Counting carbs is sufficient. For most people, and for most of what people desire in weight loss, if carbs are restricted, the rest of the diet can be ad libitem -- with certain caveats, such as eat a variety of foods, eat sufficient fiber, etc.

*Yes*, if weight loss stalls, as it will eventually (people on 0 carb diets do not continue to lose weight until they blow away in a breeze), then, attention to caloric content of the diet, and perhaps other factors as well, may become quite appropriate. However, it is also quite possible that weight loss will stall at the true optimum weight for the person, which might be heavier than current fashion, and even medical opinion, would dictate. Other writers here have quite correctly pointed out that there may be better measures of health than weight alone.



I've always been amazed at how difficult it is for some people to see themselves. Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised. After all, it is difficult for *me* to see *myself.*

Mr. Colpo, your response here is, in fact, a *confirmation* of the irrationality. First of all, you were not accused of being dishonest by me. Not one bit: I'd challenge you to find a quotation that, in context, supports that. Of being irrational, yes. And I think the irrationality has continued, it continues in seeing every criticism of *what you wrote* as a personal attack.

How will you respond to this? Well, *if I am correct that testosterone is involved,* you may well continue to respond with outrage, bluster, and what you see as justified counterattack. You will see the tone of what I'm writing here as arrogant, pugnacious, and all the rest.

"Ah for the gift the gifties gie us, to see ourselves as others see us."

Actually, we are given the opportunity all the time, but usually we reject it. It almost always seems to us like an attack.



This is not an accusation of dishonesty. Rather, it does -- a tad aggressively, I'd acknowledge -- comment on the very common practice of those involved in debate to only mention or emphasize facts which support their position. Indeed, most of us do this most of the time. Is it dishonest? Not exactly. A rational response to this being pointed out would be to address the previously omitted or underemphasized facts, and to acknowledge the extent to which those facts might weaken our previous arguments, if they do. But to, instead, counteraccuse with language like "insinuating dishonesty" is to continue the language of personal offense.

Quite clearly, Mr. Colpo does not take well to what he reads as implications of dishonesty on his part. If he *did* take well to implications of *error*, this would be, at least, reasonably rational. But he converts mentions of alleged error, it seems, into implications of dishonesty. I won't even go into the psychology of that, except to note that it is not uncommon.

We do get into a little substance, but it is remarkably like ships passing in the night.



Let me restate this: Mr. Colpo has just acknowledged that low-carb dieters lose weight without counting calories. In other words, we can conclude from those studies, and massive clinical practice, that "calories don't count," but that net carbs do. Saying, in this context, that "calories don't count" does not mean, literally, that calories have no effect; but only that -- for most dieters -- one does not have to pay attention to caloric intake. The proof is in the pudding (made with real cream, hopefully). If weight loss occurs with restricted carbs, great. For this person, it was not necessary to count calories, for this person, "calories did not count." That the high fat or high protein content of the diet may have caused the dieter to reduce overall calories is *irrelevant.* And what is irrelevant does not count *in that sense*.

(It is relevant to the question of *why* it is not necessary to count calories. It's not relevant in terms of the initial advice to be given to the dieter, except possibly to caution the dieter against gorging. Atkins' critics seem to have this vision of dieters gorging on bacon and lard, perhaps dressed with mayonnaise; that's obviously off. But I don't know how common true gorging is on an Atkins diet.)

But do calorie surfeits and deficits have an effect? Generally, yes, probably: there are many caveats and confounding factors. If weight loss does *not* occur with restricted carb consumption, obviously other factors, including total caloric intake, would wisely be considered.

Other writers here have noted, for example, that what appears to be appetite may be elevated for some people for various reasons, one of the most notable being food addiction, a need to eat for what I would call "distraction." When we are eating, even when there is no appetite and enjoyment, we are occupied. This is about half of nicotine addiction and it certainly happens with food. One of the basic skills of obtaining and maintaining reduced weight is learning to sense our real appetite; savoring food, never stuffing it in, eating slowly, would be one hint. Cooking is another, paying attention to preparing appetizing food -- which could backfire if one does not take the first hint. Sharing good cooking would be another, avoiding eating alone when possible. Find another low-carber locally and trade meals!

And then there is exercise, and, I'm sure, many other hints that Mr. Colpo could provide. He was *not* being attacked; rather, certain semantic problems with what he wrote (and in particular where he wrote about the arguments of others, including Atkins) were noted. His perception that he was being attacked has made it much more difficult to engage in the real discussion, which is a valuable and important one, as can be seen by the traffic in this thread. So, on the one hand, I apologize to him for making a personal comment that should only have been made among friends where rapport has been established, where, if incorrect, it would have been laughed off, an assumption I should not have made; but on the other hand, this apparently drew him into debate here, which, if I have read other comments correctly, might not otherwise have happened. And I think the result of that might be positive.