Dr. Gregg!

responding to your response to my respose....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm a universal discreditor -- I discredit everything that's out there today as either wrong, misinforming, or containing too little information.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting technique. Not very scientific, is it?

Plateaus are a part of all programs out there except mine.


I find that very hard to believe, but anyway, what’s the problem with plateaus? I always come out the other side and start losing wt. Again, so what’s the big deal?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you want to start with the classics then buy yourself the Biology of Human Starvation. It's a text book and is very expensive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So is your book… 65 bucks!!! From your posts and from the content on your web site, my guess is that once you subtract the hot air factor we are probably left with just a few pages. Not trying to flame you here, just posting my honest opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My impression differs from yours about the continuance of weight loss on Atkins so there is no way to resolve that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, considering this is a major point in your attack on the viability of the Atkins diet – your posts and your web site are littered with numerous inflammatory and derogatory comments on the Atkins approach, and this is the common theme to most of them – I think you HAVE to come up with something better than your “impression.”

You can’t expect us to take you seriously when you make such claims and then cop out with a sort of “it’s a difference of opinions” excuse. Where’s the evidence for your claims? Of course lots of people fail at Atkins. My guess is that most do so for reasons that have nothing to do with calorie counts.

Just not very scientific, are you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd encourage you, however, to review some of this forums posts to see how often people complain of not losing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just look at the follow up numbers for most of them. I myself posted a few complaints when I hit a big stall – I was worried it wasn’t actually working. But I stuck with it and the pounds started coming off again. And so do most of the others I have stuck with their low carb plan. You have to look a little below the surface sometimes.

If you want to be scientific, that is.

I see many complain of little loss during the induction phase which is amazing as anyone beginning a calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet should lose weight with about 70% of that weight loss arising from water losses. Again, a well-known fact within the extant scientific literature.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There you go again, tossing around science talk as if it proves your point.

I only see a few complaints about not losing wt. during induction A careful and thorough review of the information available on this board shows that. I guess you only see what you are looking for.

In fact, most people do lose wt. during induction and most of that, as I learned myself by reading this board, is water weight. This is normal and is to be expected on ANY diet.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What to do if you hit your plateau is not to further lower the carbs to 40, 30, 20, or even 10 grams per day…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know, I learned this from a number of people here on this very forum. But thanks anyway.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…but to simply eat less or perform more exercise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IF you had said eat more, you’d have been more on target! I have broken through a couple of my plateaus by eating MORE, not less. Of course, I can’t scientifically claim any causality here, who knows what really broke the spell. Could have been any number of things.

But I don’t have to be scientific. I am not selling $65.00 book and claiming I am right and all the other guys are wrong, am I?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, it's not my point of no return, it's yours.


You’re the one who makes the extraordinary claim that there is a stopping point when one is on a low carb, atkins style diet, not me. Once again, where is the proof? I see loads of evidence to the contrary and very little to support your claims, and you don’t seem to be able to back it up. I am patiently waiting for some substance in your replies on this issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I know how to do it as you can see from the photographs I posted on my web site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You look extremely HUNGRY! Heh heh, sorry, couldn’t resist….

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can calculate your calorie needs by standard formulas. It's amazing how people reject this information when they're told.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because we still don’t buy your basic premise, due to the loads of evidence to the contrary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn't make this stuff up. The scientific literature is riddled with these facts. I didn't make them facts, Nature did. People should quit killing the messenger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, you DO interpret this stuff, to support your theories and to sell your $65.00 books.

Can’t you admit to the possibility that there may be a little someone going on beyond your beloved calories in/calories out principle? A good scientist should always open to new conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence at hand.


It is a low calorie diet. It's not disguised though. It's all about the metabolic control of food intake. Again, we can't be sure of your count. This has been shown over and over. The average report of food intake is under-reported by 20-50% and even registered dieticians keeping a food diary also under-reported. If you feel I am pulling your leg here go get the test run.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You’re not really thinking about what you’re saying, are you?

Once again, you are running fast and loose with the science talk. Following your premise logically, if I am under-reporting by 20 to 50 %, then I am eating even more, way more, than I am reporting. So instead of my 2500 to 3000 calories daily, I must be eating somewhere between 3000 to 4000 calories a day. If calories matter to the degree that you are convinced they do, then why, pray tell, have I managed to lose weight?


What “test run” are you referring to?

I use fitday.com to get an idea of my calorie counts, both before and during Atkins, although I can’t be bothered to keep up with it on a daily basis. I think I get a pretty good idea of my intake, both calorie and carb-wise, by recording everything I eat for a set period, and I mean everything. I figure there’s probably a 10% margin of error either way even still.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's all about the numbers and when you have the numbers the explanation, the real one, naturally follows.

The only (ONLY) explanation of weight loss is a calorie imbalance favoring less intake than what you burn. It really is that simple but it is really so complicated because many have made it so. I had to go through all the same stuff you're thinking about and that's how I got these answers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ok, according to the numbers, you intake X calories, you burn Y via activity and exercise and just being alive and Z via Ketosis. In that case, X can be greater than Y but not greater than Y + Z.

To take this further,

If:

X = Y + Z , you stay in place
X < Y + Z, you lose wt.
X > Y + Z, you gain wt.

Seems pretty simple to me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And understand, I am not anti-low-carb. Of course, you're not hungry and neither am I. That's the low carb life but if I don't control my calorie intake too, I get fat on low carb. Nothing else is possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think we differ only on the degree of control. I eat till I am satisfied, and I don’t need to worry about calorie counts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Look at Atkins himself -- this is not a lean man or even a man who is of average body fat. When I did his radio show in 1989 we ate dinner first and he ate the baked potato right off my plate (he asked for it first).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That must have been the bizzarro backwards world Dr. Atkins! But seriously, when I get to the point where I am comfortable with my weight, I fully intend to enjoy a baked potato every now and then msyelf!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me know if this peeks your interest. What I can't do however is cover 600 pages of the best info you've ever seen on bodyweight regulation in a discussion board. Every question you've asked and every one you ever thought about is covered in the book.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For 65 bucks, no thanks!

Dr Sears uses the same self-possessed style, a tad toned down, to constantly hawk his wares, yet I've read and learned from his books.

I look forward to seeing Ellis' book in a bookstore.

Dr. Sears books are $20.00 a pop. So if you get In the Zone, Mastering the Zone, & Omega RX Zone thats $60.00
I've only bought Mastering & Omega. Omega RX is the only one I would recommend. It is very informative. I picked up The Perricone Prescription by Nicholas Perricone yesterday and between the two you'll get a real good read on fish oils.

From my own personal experience, I think Dr. Gregg's assertions make a lot of sense. I too have felt that generally, there is an undeniable relationship between calorie intake and utilization. Not being a die-hard Atkins disciple, I have always benefited from exercise and not over eating. I could never eat significant a quantum of allowable food over a prolonged period of time under an Atkins plan and lose weight. Now that may speak to the peculiarities of my own body, but the idea of just eating and eating low-carb food without regulation and losing weight, just doesn’t ring true with me.

I’m curious, has anyone tried to stick to very low carbohydrate count and eaten significant amounts of food, say 3,000 calories a day, and lost weight? Is it possible?

Pete...

Nowhere in Dr. Atkins' book does he give anyone license to pig out on allowable foods. As a matter of fact, he says just that; "The metabolic advantage is not a license to gorge yourself."
There are members who can eat more calories than others and still lose weight (check Mr. Freddy's post above where he reports consuming 2,500-3,000 calories daily and is still losing weight). My own caloric intake runs between 1,500 and 2,000 according to Fitday. I think the whole point is that when you are keeping your carbs low, you don't have to starve yourself or constantly be hungry to lose weight.
What Dr. Atkins does say repeatedly is to eat until you are satisfied, not stuffed. Some people have a difficult time determining where that point is, but many also have a difficult time eating enough on low carb because of a lack of appetite induced by ketosis. Eating too few calories can slow weight loss as much as eating too many, so it's a balance; one that each must find for themselves. I think it's true that you can consume more calories on low carb and still lose weight than on low fat/high carb (see the study I posted on a previous page), but there comes a point even on low carb where you will not lose if you are eating too much, although most people don't get to that threshold simply because they aren't hungry enough to eat that much.
Nowhere in Dr. Atkins' book does he say that exercise is unnecessary, either. He devotes an entire chapter to it and how how necessary and beneficial it is.

I suppose that may be true, but you can also excercise regularly and achieve the same result; that's been my experience anyway. And while I think a lower carb intake make's sense, I'm still unsure that it has the magic Atkins professes. Sure, if you keep away from chocolate bars, ice cream, potato chips, you're going to be better off in maintaining your goal weight - it works for me. But to me that seems like the application of common sense in avoiding food with high sugar and calorie levels.

I suppose my real point is that its as much about food choices overall as it is low carb food choices. Some people don't have an affinity for all foods that are strictly low in carbs, because they can be high in fat content. But hey, if a low carb intake helps people modify their calorie intake and lose weight effectively then so be it.

"I'm still unsure that it has the magic Atkins professes."


What "magic"? Endocrinologists have long known what high levels of insulin do to the human body. (See Schwarzbein.) Low-carbing is a way of keeping insulin low and stable. That's not magic. It's science. And it isn't just a matter of minimizing calories.

Sheldon

One more thing. It is hardly scientific to infer from forum postings that most people fail on law-carb diets. Wouldn't we expect those having problems and in need of advice to post in greater numbers than than those who are succeeding? People are busy. They are less likely to spend time on a forum if diet and weight are not giving them problems. It's hardly a scientific sample.

Sheldon

I'm so conviced that insulin is the key for me that I won't eat anything that will raise my blood sugar more than 15-20 pts from my fasting reading of 70. That eliminates starchy foods in any quantity. Real sugar, oddly enough, doesn't seem to be as bad as aspartame, which causes a big rise. (?)

I have, in the past, gained weight on 1400 calories of mostly carbs, but now I can lose weight on 1400 calories of mostly fat and protein. No one will ever convince me that diet composition isn't AT LEAST as important as calories. ( I know, I know, I'm mis-calculating my daily counts. It must be that all the measuring cups, spoons and scales in this country are faulty! It's a conspiracy!) Furthermore, I'm quite certain, if I could do it, that I could eat say, 75 grams of green veggies a day and not have a problem, but 75 grams of grain would knock me out. It makes me depressed, lethargic, my heart flutter, heartburn, on and on.
But that is only what MY situation is. Everyone has their own peculiarities.

The human body only gives up it's mysteries slowly. What we think is 'fact' now, may be proven false on down the road. Or, more likely, we will see that we didn't have the whole picture. This is an on-going journey and to think we have all the answers now is bad science.

Off my soapbox, now. And thank you Dr Atkins for opening the dialog, not for being perfect.

Amy

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

If many of us lowcarbers can lose weight by just counting carbs - who cares? Why should we try to search vainly to find that somehow we are consuming too few/too much calories? Calories do matter for some people, some situations etc; but not for everyone.

Also, I am so sick of everyone assuming that LCing is just Atkins. What about PP, TSP, CAD, The Zone, The Diet Cure, The Insulin Resistance Diet, SugarBusters etc. There are people that don't do well on Atkins but who love TSP or PP or SugarBusters. These people often have what you would consider "too many calories".

It seems you are just here to sell your book, sir. I for one will certainly not buy a book from someone who can only see one way, one solution. I can see merits to all diet plans (aside from ones like the cabbage soup diet or nonsense like that), and do not try to shove my opinions down other people's throats.

BTW, those Atkins failures you speak of may have well thrived on other lC plans if you had given them a chance, instead of immediately cutting their calories. Did you know that the scientists who created the calorie THEORY actually refuted it in journals afterwards when they saw how dangerous it was, but by then people like you weren't listening.

If caloric theory works for you, great. But don't assume it applies to everyone. It doesn't.

"The low-carbohydrate diet works through one mechanism and one mechanism only and that is its tendency to reduce calorie consumption. This was all pointed out by Dr. John Yudkin in 1960, years before the appearance of the Atkins program."........................................................................ ......................... I see another poster has already posted this study, but I am still going to post this, as I feel it is very important. From the study, ............."Eating 700 more calories per day than the low-fat group, the low-carbohydrate group lost twice as much weight (an average loss of 48 pounds for the low-carbohydrate group versus an average of 20 pounds for the low-fat group). " .............. The bottom line is that a calorie is a rather simple unit of heat, and does not take into account the complex hormonal environment of the human body. While insulin and glucogon are somewhat understood, leptin is not, and I doubt was even identified in 1960. In other words, we are currently still attempting to understand the complex mechanisms that govern fat storage and mobilization, and I feel it is rather short sighted to state that it was all defined in 1960.
I am a new member of this forum and IMHO this group of people is as diet research savy as any group that I have yet encountered, and best addressed with really solid scientific information rather than suppositions. In my experience, much of our current problems are related to a rather simplistic notion that "low-calorie" is going to solve the problem of obesity in America................................................................. ............................. Reference:Low Carbohydrate Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S., "Low Carbohydrate Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 2000, page 91.

Summary:
This study tested whether a low-carbohydrate diet that did not restrict calories would be more successful in promoting weight loss than a low-fat, low-calorie diet. Researchers also tested to see if such a diet would have negative effects on blood lipid profiles, thus increasing cardiovascular risk. To test their hypothesis, they recruited 39 obese adolescents for the study; 20 were placed in a low-carbohydrate diet group while 19 were placed in a low-fat diet group. Subjects in the low-carbohydrate group were allowed to consume as much protein and fat as they wanted, so long as carbohydrate intake remained below 20 grams for the first two weeks and below 40 grams for the next nine weeks. Members of the low-fat group were instructed to consume fewer than 40 grams of fat per day. The low carbohydrate group participants consumed an average of 1,830 calories per day while those in the low-fat group consumed 1,100 calories per day. Both groups showed improvement in HDL ("good") cholesterol, triglycerides and total cholesterol. The improvement in triglycerides was much more pronounced in the low-carbohydrate group. Eating 700 more calories per day than the low-fat group, the low-carbohydrate group lost twice as much weight (an average loss of 48 pounds for the low-carbohydrate group versus an average of 20 pounds for the low-fat group). Neither diet had any effect on liver or kidney function. The researchers concluded that the low-carbohydrate diet significantly improved weight loss despite a higher caloric intake. Also, contrary to their hypothesis, despite increased fat intake, the cardiovascular risk profile did not worsen, but in fact improved in certain aspects including HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

Regards.

Man, Dr. Ellis has a lot of energy! He seems to run about four web sites [1][2][4][6].

His approach appears to require heavy attention to detail, counting each calorie eaten and each calorie exercised. His supplements and the CalTrac device (sort of a suped-up pedometer) would be optional, I hope. Though he himself low-carbs, he seems to make no mention of the effect, as if he is long past insulin resistance and has forgotten about it. He promotes the straight AMA line that it’s simply all about calories but with, I suspect, some heavy recordkeeping.

His book may well be the all-Universe Compendium of Knowledge, and I look forward to seeing it sometime. But fitness, training, and nutrition are *so* much easier than what he’s putting himself through. Perhaps he just likes to expend maximum effort.


[1] His book web-site, which started this whole thread:
http://www.ultimatedietsecrets.com/index.html

[1a] the first hint that his is going to be a very exacting plan:
http://www.ultimatedietsecrets.com/ch4calcs.html

[1b] He’s not shy:
http://www.ultimatedietsecrets.com/part3.html

“I've uncovered everything there is to know about dieting...”

[2] His calorie-counting device web-site:
http://www.muscledynamics.net/caltrac/01_intro.html

[2a] a glimpse of his 100/100 plan, eating 100 calories less than you burn:
http://www.muscledynamics.net/caltrac/04_100plan.html

“Just following Dr. Ellis’s easy 100/100 Plan will help you lose more than 20 pounds in less than a year.”

[2b] a typical CalTrac, 100/100 day:
http://www.muscledynamics.net/caltrac/05_typical.html

[3] A really good interview with Dr Ellis:
http://www.seattlerkc.com/Girevik/S...erviewellis.htm

“I am a low-carb guy ...”
“...and I also burn about 2,000 calories per day doing eight miles of weighted vest walking carrying 40 pounds.”
“I make my own vitamins and minerals and use them along with ephedra, green tea extract, DIM, and homeopathic Growth Hormone.”

[4] A supplement he sells, of magnesium and potassium aspartate
http://www.xcellr8.com/

[4a] a fun snippet from an ‘interview’:
http://www.xcellr8.com/Affiliate_Pr...w/interview.HTM

“...I can legally, under the FDA guidelines of the DSHEA Act of 1994, claim that X-Cell-R8 “helps to increase energy and endurance.” “

[5] The FDA’s DSHEA Act of 1994, (you’re ok as long as you don’t claim to prevent disease) :
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dietsupp.html

[6] more supplements, exercise. Emphasis on detoxification:
http://www.targetedbodysystems.com/index.asp

[7] An article with his take on toxins:
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cach...ns.htm&ie=UTF-8[/url]

Whew! Kinda makes you wonder.

Sheldon

Lisa,

Do not assume that people like me who post in this forum do not understand the concept behind carbohydrates in any form like bread, pasta and the impact of insulin production and fat storage. I understand the theory reasonably well and I think it has an impact, but I'm not sure how much; at least in my case. More importantly, I think that some people, like me, don't want to give up every form of carbohydrate food because it is enjoyable. I choose to watch my carbohydrate intake but not minimize it to the extent others do. I try to supplement how I eat by excercising regularly and it works for me so yes, the magic is not there as Atkins describes it - at least for me.

As someone else pointed out, if it ain't broke don't fix it.