Replies

"We know people can't stay away from it forever."

A diet is simple, unchanging, and not in any way dependent on any single weight loss scheme. Weight is a function of the difference in the amount of calories consumed and the amount of calories expended. In order to gain weight simply consume more calories than you expend, to lose weight just reverse it, consume less calories than you expend.

For the utmost in health eat fruits, vegetables, beans, and grains for the nutrition your body requires. All other foods are to be consumed for fun because outside of an occasional fish no other foods are required for nutrition.

Counting carbohydrates is not the reason Atkin’s methods result in weight loss. The reason for the weight loss is the reduction of calories consumed and more importantly not allowing protein foods and starches in the same meal.

Simply do not combine proteins and starches “when you can’t stay away from it”. If you must have that baked potato load it with butter if you wish but do consume it with meat or any protein food. Have all the vegetables you wish with that baked potato.

Wrong--there are many metabolic switches in our system, and carb intake controls some very important ones. With all due respect, your thinking is dated. We have moved beyond "a calorie is just a calorie." Research PPARs; look at how visceral fat controls metabolism and insulin sensitivity.

It's pretty complex stuff and we do not have all the answers, but they're coming fast; don't get caught on the wrong side of emerging metabolic (approach to) truth.

Weight is a function of the difference in the amount of calories consumed and the amount of calories expended.

Not to be mean, but this statement is utter nonsense. You can consume many more calories than the body utilizes as your body can only absorb so many calories at one time.

Also, different types of foods are more or less easily converted into fat. Refined sugars and carbs are very easily converted into fat. Proteins and even bacon grease have a "longer way to go" for lack of a better term, before being converted to fat.

Try a low carb/low sugar diet and you'll see the light REAL quick. You body fat will reduce and your energy will go throught the roof.

I believed the same thing as you.. that it is a matter of calories.. but since have found out that when carbs are ingested the insulin levels spike turning what we do eat into fat.. if I eat ever eat carbs I first eat protein slowing down the digestion of carbs.. This has been the ONLY way I have controlled my weight. AND I don't count calories. I fell for the low fat ..high carb diet and what happened? I gained weight even though my caloric intake was lower.. muscles burn fat for fuel.. carbs it seems causes body fat ..

The reason for the weight loss is the reduction of calories consumed

This oft repeated criticism cracks me up. Isn't this what all the health experts are trying to get us to do, reduce calories? I guess it's only good if you do it their way. The point of Atkins is, whether you reduce your calories or not, you lose weight without feeling starved all the time. For those who have never tried to diet, it is tough being hungry all day long. When I was on a standard low-cal diet, I knew I wasn't losing unless I went to bed with my stomach growling every night. Low carb eating enables me to at least stop gaining, to feel better, and to eat when I'm hungry. For me that's a miracle right there. BTW, for you Atkins fans, I highly recommend the book "Life Without Bread."

It's nice to know the physiology behind the body's use of "calories." I can eat 2 lbs of wax, 3000 kcal, a day and starve to death within a month or two. I can eat 3 lbs of meat a day, 1500 kcal, with nothing else and die in several months due to the body's inefficient use of these calories for energy.

Likewise, I can eat 3 large snicker bars, 1350 kcal, a day and survive for years until diabetes and vascular disease ravage my corpulent frame.

"Counting carbohydrates is not the reason Atkin’s methods result in weight loss. The reason for the weight loss is the reduction of calories consumed and more importantly not allowing protein foods and starches in the same meal."

You obviously have not read any substantial amount of info about the Atkins diet. In his book he goes into detail about the diet he used for people and how it was not a reduction in calories.

The other negative comment most people make is that the people lost water weight only. That's a bunch of baloney. He has people in his clinic that have lost 150+ pounds on this diet. Are you telling me that's all water?

As for the vegetarian diet, the vast majority of people on a meat-less diet will be deficient in Vitamin B-12, along with a number of other vital nutrients, unless they take supplements.

I was on Atkins for awhile but I didn't really thrive on it. I know it's great for some people but it didn't suit me too well. I didn't lose much weight on it and I didn't feel all that great. A really interesting read is "The Metabolic Typing Diet", which goes into the research of how people from different cultures eat dramatically different diets, and how their health is affected. Some primitive tribes do very well on an all-meat diet, some do well only on a vegetarian diet. Others depend on a mix to stay healthy. It all depends on genetics. The book tries to help people find out what their genetic makeup predisposes them to be when it comes to diet, since the diet gurus in this country have tried to put us all on the same diet.

This is how I have always believed and lived. To me, its not rocket science. I have a hard time beleiving people who weight 300 lbs and say, "I only eat salads", or I eat like a bird. Most likely that "salad" is loaded with dressing, cheese, croutons, bacon, ham, etc. This "diet food" is loaded with fat, fat, fat, and probably approches 1,000 calories+. Most likely these people try to starve themselves, which lowers their metabolism, then binge eat, sure sure fire method for disasterous failure.

I went on my "diet" last summer, partly due to the fact I was told I had gall stones. All it was at first was "eat less". Instead of 4 slices of Pizza, eat two. Instead of a burger and fries, just a burger with no mayo. I played a lot of golf last summer, and with out counting calories dropped 40 pounds in three months. In October, I started working out at the gym, and by the end of the year dropped another 10 pounds, but probably put on 5-10 pounds of muscle.

After the start of the the new year, I kept up the daily cardio work and every other day weight lifting, but started counting calories. I've kept it from 1,500 to 1,700 a day, kept track of my fat, carbs, protein, intake and have tried to keep my fat intake at 20-25% of my total calories, and have lost another 20 pounds.

My waist is now a 34, a year ago I could barly button up a pair of 42 inch pants. Total, I've gone from 260 to 190, the same as when I graduated HS in 1979.

But the key for me is this is not going to be a "diet", this is how I plan to eat for the rest of my life. I will adjust upwards my total calories when I want to stop losing weight, and do it by increasing my protein intake. I don't disagree with atkins, but the hard core no carb diet is just not sustainable on a long term basis IMO. I plan on tilting much more heavily towards protein, but I want to keep fat low also.

Weight is a function of the difference in the amount of calories consumed and the amount of calories expended

Hey Mo, not to "pile-on" or anything, but last summer I used your formula. I ate "intellegently", keeping my total calorie intake down. Usually 2200 to 2700 per day w/ fruits, veggies, lean meats, whole grains, yogurt, etc. I was commuting to work on my bike ~3 days per week and tacking miles on in the off evenings and weekends. My log says I averaged 130 miles per week over 2.5 months (on the low side for die-hard roadies, but in the respectable range, I would hope). I got to where I could complete a 20 mile ride in under one hour. (Try it some time; it gives one a real appreciation for the 26 mph pace they maintain on some of those 100 mile Tour-de-Weasels stages. Did a century in under 6 hrs. What I didn't do is get my weight under 185. I'm nearly there now with a low carb diet.

Testing that Atkins cites strongly suggests that it is about more than total caloric intake vs usage. My own experiences, so far, confirm his claims. (Your results may vary)

. Weight is a function of the difference in the amount of calories consumed and the amount of calories expended.

Untrue. Different foods have different effects on hormone levels, which strongly affect metabolic rates, fat deposition, etc. For a carbohydrate-senstive person, 1000 calories of carbs is a LOT more fat-promoting than 1000 calories of protein or even fat.

I realize this sounds totally counterintuitive -- it just SEEMS like eating fat should make you fat, and eating more calories should make you fat -- but when you dig into the science (or, learn the hard way as I did) you'll discover that it just isn't true.

Since a vegan or even just a vegetarian-emphasis diet is necessarily high in carbs, carb sensitive people have little choice but to live on a heavily animal diet - as many of their ancestors did for countless centuries.