You don't need to buy the book to find out the secret, as Dr. Ellis lists it right on his website at www.ultimatedietsecrets.com. He also posted it right on this forum. The secret is that calories do count.

In addition, numerous studies are cited through out the book. In fact, Dr. Ellis doesn't make any claims without first showing the reader the scientific proof that backs up those claims.

If you don't feel comfortable paying $65 for the book, then by all means don't buy it. But then you can't possibly dismiss Dr. Elliss' theories if you don't read his book because you don't have all the information.

And what are these 4 studies?

It was well established in the 1950s and 1960s that there was no metabolic advantage to the low-carbohydrate diet, well before Atkins published his book. In 1968, Dr. Francisco Grande restated and proved the validity of the Laws of Thermodynamics as a basis against which one could test various theories that were less rigorous such as body composition tests. These new stuides are poor studies and since they go against a criteria that is far more robust, by definition, they must be flawed. They are also counter to studies already completed 40 years ago. Dr. Leibel, in the 1990s, of Rockefeller University, published extensively that the carbohydrate content of the diet made no difference in weight loss once water balance was equilibrated.

I am not an opponent of the low-carbohydrate diet, I only an opponent to Atkins Version of it. Carbohydrates DO NOT control bodyweight -- all nutritional scientists know this and it is as true as the sunrise and sunset.

I am so curious as to the why of everyone's need to support such a fallacious argument as metabolic advantage. You all claim your interest in science but it's clear that none of you can either read it or have done a comprehensive review of the extant literature on this subject. I have and there is no such thing as the metabolic advantage as described by Dr. Atkins. Even one of the scientists that he has used to support his claims (Dr. Charlotte Young) had shown that as body weight decreases calories needs drop.

Dr. Dale Schoeller has validated the Energy Balance Equation via his stuides using doubly labeled water. I say quit supporting the wrong, old, fat man, and find out how it really works. I know you won't and that's why it is a waste of my time to post on this board because the only thing thriving here is dogma and beliefs that the earth is still flat.

Of course we can.

That's shows no courage and conviction, if all he is willing to state is the claim, and not the studies it is based on.

For one simple reason, the references and medical studies are not owned by him, and not under his copyright.

We are listing all the studies and scientific proof here, and so does Dr. Atkins on his site.

Dr. Ellis refused to do so, and insisted we buy the book. Dr. Atkins makes no such demands, and readers can both compare these attitudes.

In addition, Dr. Ellis shows no respect to readers, by stating we won't understand any scientific proof. So from his own words, I can imagine the book won't have much science, and is merely his opions.

Wa'il

They are listed in the Studies page, and the Studies forum.

Wa'il

That "old fat man" at least has some respect to readers, and willing to cite scientific references, by year, volume and page number.

He never hides behind "buy first", and lists all his references on his web site.

Wa'il

Hmmm...Now I've got to wonder about that. How come when I followed a low fat/high carb diet, I couldn't lose weight unless I stayed below 1,500 calories a day and on low carb I can eat 1,800 calories a day and still lose even though I'm 8 years older? Metabolism slows down with age, so if that metabolic advantage doesn't exist, I should have to eat less calories now than I did then to lose weight if calories are all that matter and although I haven't tested this theory because I'm not willing to send my blood sugars spiraling out of control again, I'm willing to bet that it would be true if I were to attempt to lose weight on a low fat/high carb diet again. I'd also like to point out that Dr. Atkins doesn't say that you absolutely should never have to count calories and he doesn't encourage you to gorge yourself. You are told to eat until you are satisfied, not stuffed. He states quite frankly in his book that low carb is not to be used as an excuse to gorge yourself on low carb foods! Many people have a difficult time eating enough calories on low carb because their appetite disappears and they are simply not hungry. Yes, it's not likely that you will lose weight consuming 3,000 calories a day even on low carb (that metabolic advantage has its limits) but I'd challenge anyone to find more than a handful of people who do that on a consistent basis when following low carb.
I visited Dr. Ellis' web page and all he does is tease you with his opinion and tell you to buy his book to get the details. At least Dr. Atkins is honest enough to put the details and the studies supporting it right on his webpage.
I'll say again, one size does not fit all when it comes to diets. Low cal might work just fine for some folks, but it doesn't for others. Dr. Ellis' plan just might work for a lot of people, but I'd be willing to bet that it's not necessary for at least that many more people who follow low carb (Dr. Atkin's plan or any other) with great success.

Of any "proven" fact that there is "no metabolic" advantage.
what I am aware of is a rather dirty business dealing with agriculturalists pushing their products starting back at this time.
And its not Dr Atkins who has shown that.
America got "oiled" alright back at that time.. and slowly but surely we got put on the diet that has brought us all to the point of needing a diet that makes SENSE!
Old "fat" man?? How about if you actually POST some scientific date you say is out there.. but before you do... you might want to check out sites that DO talk about the business dealings that had nothing to do with science that started to push real protiens and fats OUT the door for unsafe manufactured fats such as canola?
Poofie

PS: Lisa girl.. how is it that they keep MISSING the folks that DO find the key like EUREKA !:-)

You write as if I am opposed to the low-carbhydrate diet. I AM NOT.

I agree with you about the agriculterists. Why do you interpret me as if to say I suggest eating grains? I only state that calories control, not carbos. An earlier post argured that one ate more on low-carb and lost and ate less on low-fat and gained. This is in dispute with many scientific publications. Atkins misinterpreted and manipulated the "science" of his day to meet his needs. If you understood how to read these papers, you would see that. But you don't. Your "stories" are your biases.

Until, as I did, to remove any biases, you duplicate your foods that you eat and eat one part and burn the other in a bomb calorimeter, as I did, to determine the calorie content of what you are eating, then you have not controlled for your subjective biases. This is the failing of your "science." As a scientist, I am trying to tell you that, but you refuse to hear my message. To you, I am just another huckster salesperson. Wa'il wants to believe that the presentation of a study is proof of a position's validilty. It is not. Atkins brutally misinterpreted all of the studies he reviewed because he needed to to support his dogma. Their listing is no proof of his interpretation of the science.

You don't want to hear that. You want to say the sun will not rise tomorrow, you want to disavow Laws that are in operation. You cannot do this with your speculative ideas about what you eat and don't eat. You want to call me names. You want to kill the messenger. You want to deny the inviolate Laws of Nature; you want to construct your own Laws according to the fat man Atkins. If you opened your eyes, you would see that his diet did not work for him, he is a fat man. But why face reality because delusion is so much more comfortable. No one was more captive to this mythology than I was. I am only trying to help but all types of negative comments are made about me in respect to getting money from you or not representing science. Atkins brutalized science but none of you want to hear that because your Atkins religion pushes idolatry. Then you invoke my failure to provide science to help you decide if I add anything to the party.

Why would I? The science is my WORK PRODUCT. You say Atkins presents it but you never question any of it because you don't have the skills or the training. Tell me Wa'il, what's your PhD in? What training do you have to do the pros and cons in the scientific literature game?. None, I'm sure. Because it's published, you accept it. I challenge you to go get all of the papers published by Dr. Dale Schoeller and report back to your minions what you have found. Do you even know how to do a literature search? And, after that, do you know how to play pros and cons. I doubt it. You talk out the corner of your mouth reproducing quotes out of context (as you'll do to this piece), providing nothing of substance picking on me because I give no references (that you couldn't read) and supporting the fat old man because you are committed to that. Why question your beliefs?

I know that none of my dialogue will get me anywhere with you or the readers of this forum but with 3 margueritas under my belt, I really don't give a shit.

Will I change your mind? Not the slightest iota. I can't wait to read your response because it will confirm that you cannot be changed. Open-minded-ness and exploration of facts is not your MO. I've got to go mix another marguertita and put the lights on the tree. Wallow in your disbeliefs. I aint' fat, I'm a buffed racehorse lookin' good to the max. Other than Trainer Dan, no photos on this forum convince me that any of you has a clue. Please, spare me, don't argue, just blow me off as another buffoon. I don't need or want your money. Don't buy my book, please don't buy it. You don't need me and I don't need you. I've got abs while you're still tryin' to figure out how to get rid of your pot belly. I see your weights and goals listed. I ain't impressed with how fat so many of you are. But, hang in there with Atkins, the fat old boy will deliver you. You just don't need me. Hang with the fat boy.

By the way, when I was on his radio show in 1989, he took me to dinner, where I taught him all about the biochemistry of ketosis, and he ate the potato off my plate. Any of you ever have dinner with Atkins?

Poofie...

I'll be the first to admit that there are people who don't do well on low carb, but I find myself asking over and over, "Is it design flaw or operator error?". Nearly every person who I have talked to who did not do well on low carb wasn't following the plan correctly (not enough water, no supplements, no veggies, too many calories/not enough calories, not enough carbs/too many carbs, etc..) and who might have done really well had they known someone experienced in low carb who could help them pinpoint the possible problems like a sensitivity to arachidonic acid, sensitivity to dairy or yeast overgrowth and give them advice on how to overcome those problems. That's one of the things I love about this board; there's a wealth of information and experience here and they don't tease people with generalities and then ask them to shell out 65 bucks for the specifics.

Gregory,

I'm going to have to disagree with you again on the whole calories vs. carbs issue as I did when I posted the study on page 2 that seems to disagree with what you are saying and I note that you never responded to. Here you have a study where those consuming the most calories (by a good amount) lost the most weight. The major difference is in where their calories were coming from (carbs vs. fat and protein). Do calories matter? Yes. You will never see me recommeding that someone consume a pound of bacon every day (or any day for that matter) even on low carb. Are they the end all and be all of dieting? No. Yes, your intake has to be a reasonable one, but for most people there is no need to micromanage every calorie that goes into their mouths in order to be successful at losing weight.
Incidentally, I'm not following the Atkins plan, nor do I idolize him. I've also never had dinner with him nor do I know his weight and current measurments, but I have to wonder since when somone who is on maintainance can't have a baked potato once in a while and how the fact that Dr. Atkins ate a baked potato when you ate dinner with him justifies your arguments and position? I'm just saying that this works for me as well as a whole lot of other people on this board who don't feel a need to burn what they eat in a bomb calorimeter to confirm the calorie count of what they ate and they're losing weight anyway and I'm pretty much of the opinion "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If I want to check where my calorie counts are for the day, Fitday works prettty well for me.

What we want is your data.
Not whether you have had dinner with God.. :-)
Just the data sir.
Poofie!

Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. But this is like many other things you're so sure about.

And this illustrates why your arrogance is the best reason why no one really wants to buy your book. If none of your readers can wave a paper, then they have no right to demand some scientific support for your argument? If this is done while advertising your book, I'm afraid it can only get worst once the money is paid.

Science, logic and engineering is my background, and how I earn my living.

Why are you so afraid to list any of those mysterious studies that you claim support you point?

Which studies did Dr. Atkins twist?

These referenced studies are not your work, they are published in scientific journals, and can be accessed from the public library.

Your interpretation of the studies, is your opinion, and that is the body of your work. For me to value your opinion, enough to pay for it, I have to know you will respect the reader, and can hold your ground, with medical references, and scientific background, not angry, arrogant tantrusm aginst a "fat old man".

The Earth was not prroved to be round by a person demanding money to show their evidence.

I have made my point way earlier in this thread, that thermodynamics is not the only aspect of metabolism. If this is the only magical formula you have as a scientific reference, then with all due respect, you clearly don't know the basic elements of science and logic.

Wa'il

The eminent nutrition scientist Mary Enig , along with Sally Fallon, wrote:

"An interesting finding in the Framingham study was that those who ate the most saturated fat, the most calories and the most cholesterol were the most physically active. They also weighed the least and had the lowest levels of serum cholesterol!"

That tells us something about the simplistic application of thermodynamics to human metabolism.

Sheldon

Gregory,

I don’t need to be an electrician to know that when I push the power switch the television turns on – even my 16 month old granddaughter can turn on the television. We don’t need to be scientists or engineers and know all of the intricacies of the why and how the television works – we just know that it does.

The same applies to each person’s personal health plan. Every scientist and diet guru can cite some portion of some study to support their view – everything is subject to interpretation. Remember, there’s a good reason why it’s called Medical ‘Practice’!

I do know that I, along with many others on this board, have found a way to take control of my life. This is a support forum. We support each other in our quest for a better, more healthy lifestyle, and many of us have never felt better in our entire lives. I know that I may never be Twiggy, but I am thinner, more fit, and healthier than I was a year ago, and I continue to improve. I no longer need meds for high blood pressure or acid reflux, and I had my 8 year old hyperactive grandson on roller blades tell me to slow down because I was walking too fast for him. Others here have seen similar, or even much more dramatic improvements in their health and the way they feel, yet we are using many different plans and a multitude of variations of those plans.

No single plan is best for all people – when it comes to health plans there is no ‘one size fits all’. We each need to find the plan that works best for us – whether it’s Atkins, Protein Power, Weight Watchers, or even your plan. But I have never been convinced by someone who spends all of their time condemning other people’s plans rather than telling me why theirs is good. The negativity is a turn-off, and it smacks of someone who is trying to distract me from looking too closely at their plan. If someone wants to convince me that they have a good idea, then tell me why it’s good – don’t spend all of your time telling why everyone else’s is bad.