But for some people, perhaps those who have first corrected vitamin D & magnesium insufficiency and who have a good omega 3<> omega 6 ratio the change from a carb rich diet to a low carb diet allows the weight to drop off without the need for much effort at all, and when you are successfully losing more than 2lbs a week each week every week, these positive rewards keep you on track without any or much effort.

Paying attention to the possibility of micronutrient deficiencies occurring in most weight loss diets and ensuring you correct those deficiencies may be the key to ensuring mitochondria are performing optimally.
Stephan on the subject of micronutrient deficiency

We first have to understand that obesity is an inflammatory condition and deal with the inflammation, while also understanding that because of the inflammation in our digestive system we may not be absorbing sufficient iron, vitamin B12 or folate etc.

Whatever 'first have to deal with' is up to the individual, with (or without) input from his or her doctor.

The A to Z study seems to point out that the Zone Diet is the best for micronutrients:
(from the study)
'Energy intake decreased from baseline in all 4 groups but was similar between groups. At 8 wk, a significant proportion of individuals shifted to intakes associated with risk of inadequacy (P < 0.05) in the Atkins group for thiamine, folic acid, vitamin C, iron, and magnesium; in the LEARN group for vitamin E, thiamine, and magnesium; and in the Ornish group for vitamins E and B-12 and zinc. In contrast, for the Zone group, the risk of inadequacy significantly decreased for vitamins A, E, K, and C (P < 0.05), and no significant increases in risk of inadequacy were observed for other micronutrients.'

The Zone diet is one of the more difficult diets to follow, if you are going to adhere to exactly the right proportions of carbs, protein, and fats. It's more difficult for people who, for example, have trouble with measuring food for the WW diet. This is one drawback to that diet. But if you're concerned with micronutrients, it's a good diet!

Micronutrient deficiencies don't occur in MOST weight loss diets (your words, not the study's) - the study only focused on four diets. There are many diets.

The conclusion states:
'Weight-loss diets that focus on macronutrient composition should attend to the overall quality of the diet, including the adequacy of micronutrient intakes. Concerning calorie-restricted diets, there may be a micronutrient advantage to diets providing moderately low carbohydrate amounts and that contain nutrient-dense foods.'


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20537171

The conclusion of THAT study was:
'These findings are significant and indicate that an individual following a popular diet plan as suggested, with food alone, has a high likelihood of becoming micronutrient deficient; a state shown to be scientifically linked to an increased risk for many dangerous and debilitating health conditions and diseases.'

It did not use human participants to judge the micronutrient quality of the diets studies (Atkins for Life, DASH, Best Life Diet, South Beach) but went by the menus, directions and restrictions stated in the books. If you followed the books menus to the letter, in other words (who does that?).

That study mentioned that there are correlations between nutrient deficiency and obesity. But correlation is not causation. Despite that, there is a sentence in the study that uses the word 'cause' regarding a study of overweight mothers who are nutrient-deficient in Egypt and clearly, there was no causality shown there. AND the study was authored by a person who is in the process of developing a multivatamin for his own supplement company.

An interesting study, nonetheless, requiring nothing but strict adherence to the diets to provide the measured nutrients.

(Yet, we don't know everything about micronutrients; we don't even know if there are micronutrients not yet identified, which make eating something different than taking a supplement with the same particular vitamin content.)


'the change from a carb rich diet to a low carb diet allows the weight to drop off without the need for much effort at all, and when you are successfully losing more than 2lbs a week each week every week, these positive rewards keep you on track without any or much effort.'

That is the ideal experience with low-carbing. The forum's collective experience, as evidenced by reports in journals, tell a different story. Dieting is dieting.

With Atkins, and any very low-carb diet, you lose 'water weight' the first week or two, and then your body adjusts. Still, that 'whoosh' (as it's called here) is nice. But sticking to the diet (adherence) is a matter of the individual, and it is not easy for everyone. And it really is not easy ALL the time for everyone.

The two pounds a week you mention is what WW uses as a normal weekly weight loss if you stick to THEIR diet, which essentially ends up being fewer calories than you ate before the diet.

A diet is a diet is a diet. It's up the individual to choose, because it's up to the individual to adhere.

The two pounds a week you mention is what WW uses as a normal weekly weight loss if you stick to THEIR diet, which essentially ends up being fewer calories than you ate before the diet.


When I went to Weight Watchers some years ago I raised my hand during a question and answer and asked the group leader how much I could expect to lose per week. He said 2 pounds per week. A bunch of women in the room turned towards me and shook their heads 'NO'. It was obvious to me that most/many of the people in that room were not losing 2 lbs a week, and neither did I.

I still go to WW. I lose about a pound a week. Sometimes a lot more, and sometimes I'm 'up' and then lose more the next week, or just get back to where I was.

No, it's not two pounds, and it is an average. The answer to 'how much can I expect to lose' will usually mention that losses average out and the two pounds is an estimate. Still, I'll take it. I low-carb and go to WW; there is no conflict.

As usual, YMMV! But the bottom line is adherence. WW leaders are the first people to tell you that.

(In my experience, and it may be my group, and my leader that determine this - but our collective experience in the group is that two pounds is not unusual. And more than that is a random occurrence, when looking at weekly loss.)

Don't I wish!

Adherence merely allows the method to achieve its goal, not to surpass it. This study shows us that for equal adherence, low carb is better in all things measured including weight lost in spite of eating more calories:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...the-mainstream/

WW might be good up to a point but it won't beat low carb unless we don't eat anything and that stops being WW anyway.

Well while I was losing weight I averaged 2lbs each week and I didn't count calories, points or carbs. I followed this plan which doesn't require counting I still adhere but as I'm not wanting to lose more weight I also drink more red wine than previously (It's possibly a factor underlying the tone of some late night (UK) posts).

There has to be a reason why some obese people have no problems with, no counting carbs/calories/points/meetings but achieving and maintaining weight loss, simply by eliminating wheat, and refined carbs and without additional exercise.

I'm not meaning to gloat here but I do find it puzzling why the inflammation factor obesity inevitably creates isn't considered a part of the solution to the problem that needs addressing if obesity is to be dealt with successfully?

I went over the study already that compared the diets. As I may have mentioned, I remember that study when it first came out - check out the podcast by Christopher Gardner, on iTunes, for a good discussion.

Doktor Dahlqvist's low-carb dietary plan looks interesting but it resembles other diets I've seen (and often tried). If it worked for you, great! Whatever works for you!

I don't actually run into many women on these forums who have NO PROBLEM with food when they low-carb and when they don't low-carb. Food is just food, it's not background noise. Which is why I pay attention to it. Not paying attention has never worked for me. It's an individual thing.

I stand by what I said about adherence. I don't think everyone should be on the same diet, low or high carb, low or high fat, vegetables or no vegetables. If you can adhere to a diet, it will work for you. Adherence doesn't end in 2 years or 2 months. You have to be able to live with your choice.

Didn't notice gloating. Were you gloating? Gloat away.

The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
For anyone who hasn't yet watched it this video from Christopher Gardener is worth the time.


but as we know there is a global deficiency state in some basic anti inflammatory nutrients EVERYONE who hasn't corrected these deficiency states will have higher levels of inflammation than necessary.
People need to recognise that some foods are more pro inflammatory than others.
Art Ayers Inflammation score may help people stop adding fuel to the fire.
Art's Anti Inflammation Diet guidance

This is exactly what I have been thinking!
At the moment I have enough problems to deal with: several vitamin, mineral and hormone deficiencies, adrenals near to exhaustion, thyroid not working as it should, sleeping problems...

And on top of that I would want to lose weight?
I would only be able to do it by cruelly denying my body that which it needs most: nourishment.
I understand better in the meantime what Dr. Diana Schwarzbein means when she says that first you have to become healthy, then you have to lose weight

I have taken a break from my diet, although I still keep away from anything grain-based, from industrial PUFA oil, and processed food.

I suppose that - after 8 months of dieting - I am beginning to see the light

I watched this some time ago, and I agree it's worth the time. In fact I tried to watch it again this morning, and it stops after about 5 minutes.

I'm right where you are. Dealing with the same health issues and working with my Doc to correct. Been stalled for 8 months and the health issues, I'm certain, are to blame (since I never cheat on the program guidelines). So I, too, am trying to correct those hormone issues, including high levels of cortisol, (now that I know they exist). Increasing my walking and adding Yoga as well. Once healthy again, I think I'll start to lose again. A stall to get healthy is a GOOD stall, IMO, so I don't mind an hiatus along the way to goal.

The OMEGA 3 EPA is Known to decrease cortisol as does Correcting magnesium insufficiency
consider also
Curcumin

Hmmm... you ladies sound like me. Been stalled for years now. I'm working with an ND to fix things. One thing I think is working a bit is he is having me take a large dose of Chromium, 2-3mg a day, to help with my high insulin issues. I don't know if it's working on the insulin but it really seems to help me not eat idly between meals.

Thanks for the link, I knew that he was working on a new book but I didn't realize that it was going to be published soon. I put it on pre-order.

I still need to watch this most recent lecture. I went to one of Taubes's lectures a few years ago, right after GCBC was published. It's actually what got me interested in LC. I'm interested to see what his lecture looks like now.

--Melissa