Do Calories Count?

"Rick King" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Interesting article:

http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1

A couple interesting quotes:

"Client after client has come to me, telling me "I've tried that Atkins
thing and it didn't work." "Really?" I ask. "What were you doing?" They
then proceed to list a day's worth of high-protein, high-fat food (which
rarely includes vegetables and which typically totals to about 4,000
calories a day)."

And

"The point is: Calories aren't the whole story -- but they do matter. If
you're stuck at a plateau and have stopped losing weight on your low-carb
plan, maybe it's time to do a little digging and see just how much food
you're actually consuming."

I have known for years that you can consume more calories on a Low Carb
diet vs. a Low fat High carb diet and still lose weight, but the study by
Dr Green illustrates that calories still matter.

Excellent article. I'd go for increasing exercise rather than decreasing
calories but there still has to be that deficit, but it's still a great
article.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:19:54 GMT, "Rick King" <[email hidden]> wrote:

=>Interesting article:
=>
=>http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1
=>

--snip snip--
Google and found more
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/15/health/main540776.shtml>
<http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/03-lowcarb.html>

By-Product of google
The calorie excretion effect(lose your calories)
Farting is good???
<http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=4166>

---
The more we know, the less we know.
Low carb cures hungry but stop not craving.
k 1 6 8 9 a t h o t m a i l d o t c o m

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:58:57 GMT, abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
<[email hidden]> wrote:

|The more we know, the less we know.
|Low carb cures hungry but stop not craving.

Could you translate that please?
<g?

Rick King said:

Interesting article:

http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1

A couple interesting quotes:

"Client after client has come to me, telling me "I've tried that Atkins
thing and it didn't work." "Really?" I ask. "What were you doing?" They then
proceed to list a day's worth of high-protein, high-fat food (which rarely
includes vegetables and which typically totals to about 4,000 calories a
day)."

I had a BIG friend who would eat steak and eggs for breakfast, or
whatever "low carb" breakfast food was on the restaurant menu. Perhaps
he did the same for lunch.

He never cooked.

Then for dinner he would go over to his girlfriend's house, and either
she would cook or they would go out. His girlfriend was a BIG long term
Weightwatcher member - rarely losing any weight.

At any rate, my BIG friend would like to say that he "did Atkins".

He never read a book. He didn't know the difference between carbs and
protein, but he could recognize fat. He couldn't remember if it was
better to have white or whole wheat toast. He always ate all of the hash
brown potatos put before him.

I don't think he ever lost weight.

People do unbelievably nutty things when the topic is diet.

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1

The article above references a study done at Harvard that showed people
on an 1800 calorie LC diet lost more weight than those on a 1500
calorie low fat diet. Anyone see or have a reference to the actual
study? That seems to be one study that shows a calorie isn't always a
calorie. Which is interesting, as we periodically see the debate over
whether LC ultimately works only because it dramatically reduces
hunger, so people wind up eating less calories.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1
::
::
:: The article above references a study done at Harvard that showed
:: people on an 1800 calorie LC diet lost more weight than those on a
:: 1500 calorie low fat diet. Anyone see or have a reference to the
:: actual study? That seems to be one study that shows a calorie
:: isn't always a calorie. Which is interesting, as we periodically
:: see the debate over whether LC ultimately works only because it
:: dramatically reduces hunger, so people wind up eating less calories.

I think that (based on MY experience), in the end, it's all about calories,
as far as weight loss is concerned. However, from a practical POV, it
matters greatly where the calories come from. If a person is highly IR,
then calories that greatly influence BG levels in the body have a practical
impact on a person's ability to lose weight - either they will hold water
(which will mask fat loss in the short term) or are not be able to stay on
plan, or both. Once these people remove the sources of calories that
strongly impact BG, they can lose weight readily. Any notion that they are
losing on higher calories probaby is skewed by a rev'ed up & screwed up
metabolism and quick loss of water weight.

I do wish I could find the original article (I think we've seen it here -
Susan can probably nail it), but the article you point to doesn't seem to
give enough info ot make it worth searching for, for me, anyway.

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

I do wish I could find the original article (I think we've seen it here -
Susan can probably nail it), but the article you point to doesn't seem to
give enough info ot make it worth searching for, for me, anyway.

I'm not sure which article you're referring to, Roger, but I maintain on
about 50% more calories per day than I did on low fat, high carb. I was
extremely IR until I began metformin recently.

Numerous studies show this advantage, the Schneider Children's Hospital
Peds study leaps to mind. Studies also show that the advantage in term
of weight loss peters out by one year, but during that time, carbs are
added to the LC diet, so the similarity may be due to the diets becoming
more similar, along with the water loss no longer occurring.

But calories still matter; some of them matter differently, especially
to those of us with dysregulated metabolism.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: I do wish I could find the original article (I think we've seen it
::: here - Susan can probably nail it), but the article you point to
::: doesn't seem to give enough info ot make it worth searching for,
::: for me, anyway.
:::
:::
::
:: I'm not sure which article you're referring to, Roger, but I
:: maintain on about 50% more calories per day than I did on low fat,
:: high carb. I was extremely IR until I began metformin recently.

I *think* I'm referring to the one that showed something like a 300 cal/day
difference on LC versus something else (lf?).

::
:: Numerous studies show this advantage, the Schneider Children's
:: Hospital Peds study leaps to mind. Studies also show that the
:: advantage in term of weight loss peters out by one year, but during
:: that time, carbs are added to the LC diet, so the similarity may be
:: due to the diets becoming more similar, along with the water loss no
:: longer occurring.

The first question that always comes to mind when hearing this is whether
account was made for the big water weight drop that happens on LC. I seem
to remember this was done in at least one study I've read. Even still, I
don't think it is generally accepted with in the medical/scientific
community that there is a such thing as a "metabolic advantange", and while
a relative "handful" of studies may demonstrate such, perhaps the complexity
of the issue is hiding what's really going on.

Even for the "metabolically dysfunctional" I can't imagine someone gaining
weight on 1000-cal LF diet (that would *seem* to be possible based on the
statement you made above regarding your maintenance on LC vs LF). To me, it
just doesn't make sense (still 🙂 ). I personally was able to lose 100 lbs
on a LF diet (didn't calorie count) with lots of exercise, while eating big
mounts of rice & pasta & bread (but still doing [censored] of exercise). All
while being a T2 who started this after a good stretch of inactivity. Of
course, it is all still a YMMV kind of thing, but we are all humans, so
there ought to be some similarities.

::
:: But calories still matter; some of them matter differently,
:: especially to those of us with dysregulated metabolism.

Yes, I do agree. Still, I wonder how well we understand the dysregulated
meabolism.

::
:: Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

I *think* I'm referring to the one that showed something like a 300 cal/day
difference on LC versus something else (lf?).

Hmmm. Not sure I recall that, though it sounds vaguely familiar. The
studies that's shown a diff have it closer to 50% more calories on low
carb *and* more weight loss.

Quoted message said:

The first question that always comes to mind when hearing this is whether
account was made for the big water weight drop that happens on LC.

That's clearly a big part of the diff in the short term studies, but
less so when the study is 6 months or more. I dunno about you, but my
water loss ended within two weeks. I think, as I mentioned, that it's
part of the explanation for why the difference is gone by one year.

I seem

Quoted message said:

to remember this was done in at least one study I've read. Even still, I
don't think it is generally accepted with in the medical/scientific
community that there is a such thing as a "metabolic advantange", and while
a relative "handful" of studies may demonstrate such, perhaps the complexity
of the issue is hiding what's really going on.

Roger, you're nicer than I am. I don't think the complexity of the
issue is hiding it from *us*, just from the cement brained researchers
who present only one possibile explanation for each finding. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Even for the "metabolically dysfunctional" I can't imagine someone gaining
weight on 1000-cal LF diet (that would *seem* to be possible based on the
statement you made above regarding your maintenance on LC vs LF).

I gained on more than 800 per day back then; my IR was extreme. I was
thin, BTW.

To me, it

Quoted message said:

just doesn't make sense (still 🙂 ). I personally was able to lose 100 lbs
on a LF diet (didn't calorie count) with lots of exercise, while eating big
mounts of rice & pasta & bread (but still doing [censored] of exercise).

I was able to lose on LF too, til I couldn't anymore.

All

Quoted message said:

while being a T2 who started this after a good stretch of inactivity. Of
course, it is all still a YMMV kind of thing, but we are all humans, so
there ought to be some similarities.

I suspect our variations are at least as great. You and I are at two
extremes, you with your DM control and non DM results, me with the
extreme nature of my IR and slowness of my metabolism.

Quoted message said:

::
:: But calories still matter; some of them matter differently,
:: especially to those of us with dysregulated metabolism.

Yes, I do agree. Still, I wonder how well we understand the dysregulated
meabolism.

Genes, illness, lifestyle, natural human variety. If you were to read
the PCOS group, for example, there are so many obese women there
(extreme IR) who diliently diet and exercise with no weight loss til
they get on LC or LC with metformine for IR.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
:::
::: I *think* I'm referring to the one that showed something like a 300
::: cal/day difference on LC versus something else (lf?).
::
:: Hmmm. Not sure I recall that, though it sounds vaguely familiar. The
:: studies that's shown a diff have it closer to 50% more calories on
:: low carb *and* more weight loss.

It is so friggin hard to stay up...LC, general health, diabetes, cycling,
pcs, girls, and my professional work, too. I give up! 🙂

::
::: The first question that always comes to mind when hearing this is
::: whether account was made for the big water weight drop that happens
::: on LC.
::
:: That's clearly a big part of the diff in the short term studies, but
:: less so when the study is 6 months or more. I dunno about you, but
:: my water loss ended within two weeks. I think, as I mentioned, that
:: it's part of the explanation for why the difference is gone by one
:: year.

Same here on the time frame at the beginning, even though I've forced nearly
complete glycogen drain within a day or two after a complete carb up (I can
be really extreme sometimes!).

::
:: I seem
::: to remember this was done in at least one study I've read. Even
::: still, I don't think it is generally accepted with in the
::: medical/scientific community that there is a such thing as a
::: "metabolic advantange", and while a relative "handful" of studies
::: may demonstrate such, perhaps the complexity of the issue is hiding
::: what's really going on.
::
:: Roger, you're nicer than I am. I don't think the complexity of the
:: issue is hiding it from *us*, just from the cement brained
:: researchers who present only one possibile explanation for each
:: finding. ;-)

I must admit that that recent Charlie Rose show had me a little [censored] at
the guy who apparently represented "science". In this opinion, it's simply
calories, nothing more, nothing less. I think he views LC as some sort of
"trick."

::
:::
::: Even for the "metabolically dysfunctional" I can't imagine someone
::: gaining weight on 1000-cal LF diet (that would *seem* to be
::: possible based on the statement you made above regarding your
::: maintenance on LC vs LF).
::
:: I gained on more than 800 per day back then; my IR was extreme. I
:: was thin, BTW.
::

Amazing. Has there ever been anything published on people gaining weight on
so few calories? That sort of thing should show up in the IR research,
you'd think. Imagine, a paper like that would blow the calorie theory out
of existance.

:: To me, it
::: just doesn't make sense (still 🙂 ). I personally was able to lose
::: 100 lbs on a LF diet (didn't calorie count) with lots of exercise,
::: while eating big mounts of rice & pasta & bread (but still doing
::: [censored] of exercise).
::
:: I was able to lose on LF too, til I couldn't anymore.
::

Frankly, I can't imagine ever doing LF again. Well, if I carb up, I try to
make it LF, though it's more fun to keep the fat too! 🙂

:: All
::: while being a T2 who started this after a good stretch of
::: inactivity. Of course, it is all still a YMMV kind of thing, but
::: we are all humans, so there ought to be some similarities.
::
:: I suspect our variations are at least as great. You and I are at two
:: extremes, you with your DM control and non DM results, me with the
:: extreme nature of my IR and slowness of my metabolism.
::

Yes, I guess one has to remember that ones own experiences don't apply to
everyone. It gets hard at times, though. Frankly, if I gained on 800, I'd
just quit.

:::
:::::
::::: But calories still matter; some of them matter differently,
::::: especially to those of us with dysregulated metabolism.
:::
::: Yes, I do agree. Still, I wonder how well we understand the
::: dysregulated meabolism.
::
:: Genes, illness, lifestyle, natural human variety. If you were to
:: read the PCOS group, for example, there are so many obese women there
:: (extreme IR) who diliently diet and exercise with no weight loss til
:: they get on LC or LC with metformine for IR.

Metformin seems like a true wonder drug!

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

Amazing. Has there ever been anything published on people gaining weight on
so few calories? That sort of thing should show up in the IR research,
you'd think. Imagine, a paper like that would blow the calorie theory out
of existance.

In the PCOS anecdotes and I suspect in hypothyroidism literature.

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I can't imagine ever doing LF again. Well, if I carb up, I try to
make it LF, though it's more fun to keep the fat too! 🙂

I not only low fatted for a decade, I did Ornish for a long time; that's
when I developed PCOS and labile hypertension. I was always hungry and
bloated.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I guess one has to remember that ones own experiences don't apply to
everyone. It gets hard at times, though. Frankly, if I gained on 800, I'd
just quit.

I didn't want to be fat. It got so I documented every spoonful of food
on fitday, and I was shocked at how I didn't lose, just maintained at 800.

Quoted message said:

::: Yes, I do agree. Still, I wonder how well we understand the
::: dysregulated meabolism.

Poorly; because researchers keep asking the wrong questions, or not
enough questions.

Quoted message said:

Metformin seems like a true wonder drug!

For those who need it, yes.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Amazing. Has there ever been anything published on people gaining
::: weight on so few calories? That sort of thing should show up in
::: the IR research, you'd think. Imagine, a paper like that would
::: blow the calorie theory out of existance.
::
:: In the PCOS anecdotes and I suspect in hypothyroidism literature.
::
::
::: Frankly, I can't imagine ever doing LF again. Well, if I carb up,
::: I try to make it LF, though it's more fun to keep the fat too! 🙂
::
:: I not only low fatted for a decade, I did Ornish for a long time;
:: that's when I developed PCOS and labile hypertension. I was always
:: hungry and bloated.
::
::: Yes, I guess one has to remember that ones own experiences don't
::: apply to everyone. It gets hard at times, though. Frankly, if I
::: gained on 800, I'd just quit.
::
:: I didn't want to be fat. It got so I documented every spoonful of
:: food on fitday, and I was shocked at how I didn't lose, just
:: maintained at 800.

I have to admit, I have a hard time NOT believing you, Susan. Amazing,
really.

::
:::::: Yes, I do agree. Still, I wonder how well we understand the
:::::: dysregulated meabolism.
::
:: Poorly; because researchers keep asking the wrong questions, or not
:: enough questions.
::

Very possible.

::: Metformin seems like a true wonder drug!
::
:: For those who need it, yes.

Well, that all that counts.

::
:: Susan

Quoted message said:

http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1

The article above references a study done at Harvard that showed people
on an 1800 calorie LC diet lost more weight than those on a 1500
calorie low fat diet. Anyone see or have a reference to the actual
study? That seems to be one study that shows a calorie isn't always a
calorie. Which is interesting, as we periodically see the debate over
whether LC ultimately works only because it dramatically reduces
hunger, so people wind up eating less calories.

There's also the principle of - More to lose, faster to lose it, less
to
lose, slower to lose it. As a trend it's easily noticed by noting
weights
and loss rates. I don't recall it being mentioned in any Atkins book
and
I don't recall any study on it.

To me that principle brings up the question - How much did the
experiment
subjects have to lose? Put in enough who have 100+ to lose in one
group and 20- to lose in another and pretty much any other trend would
likely be wiped out.

x-no-archive: yes

Doug Freyburger wrote:

Put in enough who have 100+ to lose in one

Quoted message said:

group and 20- to lose in another and pretty much any other trend would
likely be wiped out.

In studies where the subjects were similarly overweight, LC dieters have
pretty consistently lost more weight on more calories.

What on earth could possibly be the point of using the same intervention
on two diverse groups? Obese folks are different, metabolically speaking.

Susan

Quoted message said:

http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1

The article above references a study done at Harvard that showed people
on an 1800 calorie LC diet lost more weight than those on a 1500
calorie low fat diet. Anyone see or have a reference to the actual
study?

To bad this site no longer works:

http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

RRzVRR wrote:
:: [email hidden] wrote:
::
::: http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1
:::
:::
::: The article above references a study done at Harvard that showed
::: people on an 1800 calorie LC diet lost more weight than those on a
::: 1500 calorie low fat diet. Anyone see or have a reference to the
::: actual study?
::
:: To bad this site no longer works:
::
:: http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp
::

Wasn't this Laura Richard's site? Has it been "hacked"?

Rick King said:

Interesting article:

http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1

A couple interesting quotes:

"Client after client has come to me, telling me "I've tried that Atkins
thing and it didn't work." "Really?" I ask. "What were you doing?" They then
proceed to list a day's worth of high-protein, high-fat food (which rarely
includes vegetables and which typically totals to about 4,000 calories a
day)

You should really have looked into it further. If he rarely included
vegetables in his diet then he WAS NOT doing the Atkins diet. I
follow the Atkins diet to a tee and I rarely get over 2,000 calories a
day.

Roger Zoul said:

RRzVRR wrote:
:: [email hidden] wrote:
::
::: http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?cmi=1884693&cid=1
:::
:::
::: The article above references a study done at Harvard that showed
::: people on an 1800 calorie LC diet lost more weight than those on a
::: 1500 calorie low fat diet. Anyone see or have a reference to the
::: actual study?
::
:: To bad this site no longer works:
::
:: http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp
::

Wasn't this Laura Richard's site? Has it been "hacked"?

I was looking for Laura's site and thought that this link was
it... too bad it appears to have been been hacked.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

Roger Zoul said:

Even for the "metabolically dysfunctional" I can't imagine someone gaining
weight on 1000-cal LF diet (that would *seem* to be possible based on the
statement you made above regarding your maintenance on LC vs LF). To me, it
just doesn't make sense (still 🙂 ). I personally was able to lose 100 lbs
on a LF diet (didn't calorie count) with lots of exercise, while eating big
mounts of rice & pasta & bread (but still doing [censored] of exercise). All
while being a T2 who started this after a good stretch of inactivity. Of
course, it is all still a YMMV kind of thing, but we are all humans, so
there ought to be some similarities.

I think that the reason this is controversial at all is because *all*
sides of the argument are true.

If you eat low-calorie, whether low-fat, low-carb, or whatever - you do
lose weight.

If you eat low-carb, you can eat more calories than on low-fat and
still lose weight.

If you eat low-carb, and eat *enough* calories, you will not lose
weight. There *is* a metabolic advantage to low-carb, likely moreso
for those with IR or diabetes, but... you can overwhelm that advantage
by eating too many calories.

It comes down to ketones vs. sugars in metabolism. Fats break down to
ketones, which can be used for energy *or* discarded if you don't burn
them all, whereas carbs break down to sugars which have to be burnt up
to be discarded.

When I talk about ketosis, I don't mean peeing on a stick, but the
actual underlying biochemistry, which occurs anytime you don't eat
enough carbs to prevent it. Some of the ketones present when you have
a glucagon-mediated biochemistry are lost via respiration and/or
urine... they're not completly broken-down, thus your body "loses" some
of those calories.

Ketones are physically smaller than sugars. You don't generally lose
sugar through urine unless you have *very* high bg.

You also don't lose carbs through respiration, your body has to break
the sugars way down to the level of C02 to exhale the products of carb
metabolism. But even if you don't have ketone-breath to be noticeable,
you are losing some ketones in your breath.

So... your body burns carbs more efficiently, extracting every bit of
energy from them, than it does fats.

And, of course, there's also the hunger-limiting advantages of eating
low-carb.

The thing is... that you have an advantage doesn't mean you *will*
succeeed. You *can* eat enough calories on low-carb to not only not
lose weight, but to actually gain it. Any number of advantages can be
overcome by enough bullheaded stupidity on the part of the dieter.

The *only* time I think calories don't matter at *all* is on induction,
because weight loss isn't the goal anyways, but switching over from
insulin-mediated to glucagon-mediated biochemistry. *Just* sticking to
low-carb long enough to make that switch is the important thing. It's
*preparatory* to weight-loss, and I don't personally expect to lose
*any* fat during induction. In fact, I think that it's very likely the
only weight loss that occurs during induction at all is water loss.
There's withdrawal and cravings to deal with, and a whole lot of
overeating occurs until the first week or two is past.

So... I think it's *fine* to eat 3000, 4000 or even more calories on
induction, prepartory to actual weight loss, but if someone does that
beyond the first week or two... they'll gain other advantages of
low-carb dieting, but not lose weight.