Howdy,

I went on an elimination "diet" to deal with health problems...although it had nothing to do with calories, I did lose weight and lots of it (over 20 lbs I think?)...I was eating so much more food that at one point, I went to a calorie counting website to find out just how much I was consuming...can you believe I was taking in 4500-5500 per day and losing weight!

That's how I discovered first-hand that the secret to weight loss has a lot more to do with WHAT you eat than it does total calories. As has already been mentioned, cut out the white stuff, replace potatoes with coloured root veg. (sweet pots, yams, turnip, etc.), seriously cut back or eliminate pasta, breads and/or replace with whole grains...and eat often (key to metabolism and calorie-burning). Drink lots of water, in fact replace all other drinks for a time if you can, then choose wisely which ones to reintroduce (ie. bottled/frozen/canned juice is just a silly choice for many reasons other than just caloric...eat the fruit, get the fibre, avoid the mold...squeeze your own for a treat once in a while otherwise say bye-bye forever).

It's all easy-peasy as Jamie Oliver would say. (I eat lots of Jamie O's recipes) but tough to stay the course. However...you are a MBer!!! You are tough and have learned to stay the course through great personal trial and difficulty!!! You CAN do it!!!

Cravings: the elimination regime I was on was severe so I am extremely familiar with cravings. As Melody said, they will go away...mine disappeared between week 4-5. As for life-long changes, refined sugar is terrible for you anyhow...try to get rid of it forever if you can! Eat fruit instead.

A good way to deal with the cravings is to follow stop-smoking routines...they have lots of great info on how to divert your mind from cravings. The craving itself lasts for only a brief time...of course, the real problem is when you get hit by multiple cravings! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> However, it helps to know they will ease off over time...just keep thinking motivating thoughts: wow those clothes look great on me, people are saying how fantastic I look, okay it's getting easier to deal with them now!

Sadly the best weight loss program was the infidelity diet...I am model-thin now...never thought I'd look this way again...it's been over 6 months now, people still compliment me all the time and I still struggle with an answer..."yeah well, it's easy to lose weight when your H cheats on you!" (no no no...that's too bitter <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="images/icons/blush.gif" /> )..."well gosh, staying awake night after night hating OW for the B*tch she truly was burned a few calories!" (no no no...I'm trying to work on forgiving her <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> )...

LOL...ah well...I've settled on "it was a hard year for me...sorrow has a real way of melting off the pounds. I guess this is just nature's way of balancing the scales!" That way, no one is insensitive enough to press me with further questions (everyone knows of at least one of the other sorrows in my life) and we also move on from the topic of weight loss without anyone questioning me on the "diet" I used.

Enjoy your food...enjoy your life...enjoy your H and your marriage...enjoy your newfound knowledge...so many riches makes a little deprivation easier to take...awed

awed - aah yes, Jamie Oliver... The Naked Chef. The original title of his show caught my eye (what with all the reality tv), but alas he was fully clothed.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by awed18:
... the secret to weight loss has a lot more to do with WHAT you eat than it does total calories. ... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">it has everything to do with what you eat AND total calories AND activity/exercise.

think of human physiology as a tripod. remove one of the legs and there's an imbalance. yes, it's possible to 'lose weight' without one of the legs. but to lose fat you require all three legs to be relatively balanced.

Awed,
Thanks a bunch for the nice reply. What in the world were you eating on that elimination diet? That many calories and still losing weight!!! I want to try that!
I'm finally learning about the content of what I eat being important, of course I sorta knew it all along. I've always been able to eat what I wanted until a few years ago when I hit forty. And yes, I also lost weight in the infidelity diet...bad way to lose. As I started healing and feeling better, I started eating again, and gaining the weight back. But, I am bound and determined to get in shape and stay that way this time. I had been depressed before finding out about my X's affair, which had been going on for several years before I found out. But, since the D is final, I am determined to get my life back. I think in a year or two that I will want to start dating, and I want to look my best!! Thanks so much for the encouragement and insight. Please pray for me as I undertake this.
KK

Never Alone: Jamie rocks! Not naked but still a very funny, engaging, non-stuffy English bloke, country-pub back-street boy with a motor-mouth delivery...what a welcome whiff of fresh air...and yummy food too...I want to try his restaurant in London...maybe I should ask Lisa (in London of course) if she's been there!

But I guess drooling over food on a diet thread is in bad form... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

KK: you are so welcome -- I wish you health and happiness in great abundance!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

One other suggestion I could make...I am 41 and had a very bad year prior to finding out about the A. I worked extremely hard on my personal recovery during Plan A and one of the motivational techniques I used with myself was to make sure I did things that did not represent a "waste of time". For example, learning how not to LB...I figured this was a great life skill to have...even if it did not "work" with my H, it would with everyone else in my life!

I live alone in the country and value my independence fiercely...while I was driving across country this summer I realized that I was nervous about camping by myself (I stayed in motels instead).

So when I got home, I did something I'd wanted to do for years...started a martial arts course. A practical, street-based, positive, non-injury, family-oriented discipline called Wing Chun.

Not only can I say this is amazing for your physical well-being, it helps with your emotional/spirirtual well-being too...the focus on relaxation, breathing, concentration, etc. The knowledge that you will have some defence if (like me) you've never been a physically dominating person. I won't beat up Jackie Chan in any great hurry to be sure! But at least now I have additional tools to handle physical situations, the confidence to do so, and a physical exercise routine that is so much more than that. One that will be easy to maintain precisely because it IS so much more than that.

Tai Chi is another awesome physical program, one that you can do until you die (very good for joints & mobility). Most people don't realize it is actually a fighting art too -- wow, I am sounding fiercesome! I don't mean to imply we all need to fight...quite the opposite actually. Just pointing out that one thing many of us women share is the nagging fear of physical aloneness, the physical threat of the unknown, lurking male.

I wish I'd done this years ago, given myself the power of physical confidence along with just keeping "in shape".

Bonus: also gives you very nice lean muscles <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> -- I can do push ups for the FIRST TIME EVER in my life...woo hoo...and (I should mention this too!) I have a whole new "family" who know nothing about my H, his A, the OW, and love to talk about something I find a good mental distraction.

Sorry to blather on but whippit's mention of physical activity brought on a wave of excitement at my new "thing"...not directly related to weight loss but could be! + so much more...

Edit: Forgot to answer your question...the diet consisted of no wheat, no dairy, no soy, no yeast, no sugar, no mold, no corn, no fruit (no sauces, no canned/frozen/prepared foods, no vinegar)...you get the basic picture.

I ate tons of food...grazed all day long pretty much...lots of protein, lots of veg, lots of nuts, cashews mostly...calories were of no concern at all and since my cholesterol is far below the bottom of normal, that wasn't a factor either. But the cravings...oh the cravings... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> ...so from one MBer to another, you can do it grrrrl!!! Grit yer teeth and go for it...you will be soooo proud of yourself for making it through...

<small>[ December 17, 2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: awed18 ]</small>

kk, I was over my sugar addiction in about 10 days, but I sure wanted all that junk food the first 2 months! Strangely, I was able to control my eating as long as I was not hungry. I could pass it on by, whereas before I just craved it so bad, I had to have it! I found the trick is to always have plenty of good low carb food on hand.

And awed18 is correct, calories are not the key to weight loss. Calories are still an issue, but their importance is secondary to macronutrient ratio [fat/protein/carbohydrates]. What I mean by this is that the body reacts VERY DIFFERENTLY to a gram of carbohydrate than it does to a gram of fat.

A gram of carbs is converted to glucose, which is stored as BODY FAT. Dietary fat is metabolized by the liver and eliminated. However, in order to burn off STORED BODY FAT, the body has to first metabolize glucose. When one eats lots of carbs, it takes much longer to get to that point.

That is why you can eat many more calories on a low carb diet and lose much more weight than on a low fat/high carb diet. Calories in/calories out might sound cute on bumper stickers but it doesn't make sense when one understands how very differently the body metabolizes fat versus carbohydrates or protein.

Which is how people like me can go from a low fat diet eating 1100 calories, losing nothing, to a high fat/low carb diet, consisting of 2000 calories and dump 40 pounds.

Ooooh this is facinating and right along the lines of what I've been thinking about. I got a treadmill for Christmas, but I know to really lose some weight I need to change my diet. I've been very curious about the Atkins...I believe I'm going to give it a try!!

I see Atkins books and even 'kits', or online sign up programs. Do I need any of these, or is the information available online??

Count me in for accountability...but not til after the holidays! I LOVE my holiday baking...maybe I can skip it next year, but I'm a MAJOR sugar addict right now and don't think I'd make it starting out this time of the year. I'm interested in losing 20-30 pounds, but would be happy to lose 15.

Hey, Hope! The only thing you really need is the paperback book, Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution. It is invaluable. You don't have to read the whole thing to start, but reading it will make a huge difference in your success.

Hope,
Awesome! We'll count you in, New Years Day will be start day. I'm just trying to not gain any more weight before then! I have the Atkins book, and it is pretty interesting reading. Let me know what you think.
KK

Well, I got a little distracted and never answered about what The Zone is. I guess I can summarize it two different ways:

- It's Atkins "lite" in that it's not nearly so hardcore about limiting carbs, but still limits them much more than the average American diet.

- It's a highly balanced diet that focuses on lean meats that are low in saturated fats, fresh vegetables and fruits, and the right amount of "good" (e.g., unsaturated and mono-unsaturated) fats.

The thing that I really liked about it was the focus on getting nutrients into the diet even while your calories are restricted. Like whippit said, I believe that losing FAT (as opposed to just weight) is a three-pronged thing. Gotta do the exercise, gotta lose the calories, and gotta keep the nutrients (macro and micro and water) coming in. The Zone (and Protein Power, which is very similar) did that best for me.

Of course, that was five years ago. Then I went on HRT and gained fifteen pounds in less than a month. Then my weight stabilized at a place I thought was reasonable, and I focused on keeping it stabilized. Then I went on the infidelity diet and then I gained it all back and more. Now NONE of my clothes fit and I have bulges like I've never had before. Eyuck. Definitely time to exercise and all that.

Sooooo, yes, I'll make a diet and exercise and accountability part of my PLan B activities! When do we start?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane:
A gram of carbs is converted to glucose, which is stored as BODY FAT. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">only when it's not synthesized. how do you synthesize or metabolize more carbohydrate? use your body more to convert glucose to glycogen -- which is fuel for your body's soft tissues.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Dietary fat is metabolized by the liver and eliminated. However, in order to burn off STORED BODY FAT, the body has to first metabolize glucose. When one eats lots of carbs, it takes much longer to get to that point. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">only if the body has little or no vigorous exercise. at the extreme, long distance runners, for instance, eat extremely high carb/low fat. i don't recall any of those folks being fat.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That is why you can eat many more calories on a low carb diet and lose much more weight than on a low fat/high carb diet. Calories in/calories out might sound cute on bumper stickers but it doesn't make sense when one understands how very differently the body metabolizes fat versus carbohydrates or protein.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">calories in/calories out is more than a cute bumper sticker. said long distance runners often comsume up to 5000 calories per day year round. dave scott, six-time ironman triathalon champ, ate 6000 cals to be able to run 17 miles, bike 70 miles and swim 20,000 meters EVERY DAY. without that sort of exercise (which equals calories out), you can bet he would have gotten fat.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Which is how people like me can go from a low fat diet eating 1100 calories, losing nothing, to a high fat/low carb diet, consisting of 2000 calories and dump 40 pounds.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">congratulations! that's an impressive accomplishment. you should, indeed, be proud!

i've never seen you nor am i a nutritionist, but i can tell by looking at the numbers you've given that your old diet was storing fat. you were literally starving yourself, and your body, fearing famine, needed to ensure its long-term survival by hoarding its slowest-burning source of energy: body fat.

a 150 pound person (male or female) who has no exercise beyond basic every day living (going to work, running errands, housecleaning, tinkering in the garage, breathing, etc) can maintain their present weight on 1800 to 2000 (known as Base or Basal Metabolic Rate, roughly figured as Weight X 12) calories from 50 percent good carbs, 30 percent quality protein and 20 percent healthy fats. a moderate deficit of calories (either by consuming fewer calories or adding more exercise, but ideally both) of 300 to 500 calories per day will result in fat loss. which, as i mentioned before, is much different than weight loss.

now this doesn't say that ketogenic diets, like atkins and south beach, don't work. they do in many cases. in fact, bodybuilders and fitness models use similarly low carb diets in the weeks before contests and photo shoots to reach super-low body fat (2 to 4 percent for men; 7 to 10 percent for women). but afterwards they resume more balanced macronutrient ratios and maintain some of the lowest body fat profiles (8 to 12 percent for men; 15 to 18 percent for women) you'll find.

i don't mean to pick on anyone. really, i don't. but there are some irrefutable tenets of fat loss and, among them, calories in/calories out is at the top of the list.

Oh, and did someone here mention Collage Video, or was that somewhere else? Either way, if you're looking for good exercise videos, they're a great place to start. The Firm, Christi Taylor, Gin Miller, and Tae Bo are all excellent. And all also way beyond my abilities right now. *sigh* Ah, well. That's why I'm getting the gym membership for Christmas.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by whippit:


i don't mean to pick on anyone. really, i don't. but there are some irrefutable tenets of fat loss and, among them, calories in/calories out is at the top of the list. [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hi whippit, I agree with most of what you say about glucose metabolism and storage as fat, however, the average person is not an endurance athlete and the average person consumes extremely high levels of carbohydrates. The average American consumes 50%+ of their calories from carbohydrates, which has caused an epidemic of obesity. And it is EXCESS carbohydrates that are stored as fat, NOT FAT.

And I would absolutely disagree with the philosophy of calories in/calories out, it is very refutable, just ask any endocrinologist. Basic knowledge of endocrinology rules this out on the basis that very different things happen when carbohydrates are consumed versus fat. The body metabolizes them differently and as I said above, glucose must be burned off before it EVER gets to the stored body fat. So, the more glucose you produce, the less fat you will burn. Any excess glucose is stored as body fat.

It always comes back to macronutrient ratio as study after study shows. Sure, metabolism can slow some when calories are reduced, but even in studies where calories are EQUAL but the ratios are different [high fat versus high carb] the high fat/low carb groups always win out. Calories in/calories out IGNORES that simple truth that is known by every endocrinologist. it is Endocrinology 101. There have been a flood of studies done on low carb diets

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">i've never seen you nor am i a nutritionist, but i can tell by looking at the numbers you've given that your old diet was storing fat. you were literally starving yourself, and your body, fearing famine, needed to ensure its long-term survival by hoarding its slowest-burning source of energy: body fat.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But haven't you just agreed with what I said? If calories were all that mattered, then I would have lost weight at 1100 instead of 2000. Lowering calories was not the answer, changing my ratio was the answer. I was literally starving because I was on a high carb/low fat/low calorie diet, which all started at 1500 calories a day and went downhill from there over a 4 month period of time. Had my ratio been different, I would have lost weight at 1100 calories, but a lack of fat prevented that. I started off at 1500 calories per day and lost 2 pounds, then stalled. I then reduced calories down to 1300, gained 2 pounds, and then reduced down to 1100, losing nothing. Before, at 2000 calories on a high carb diet, I was gaining weight. But when I dramatically increased my fat intake to 65% of my calories [from 25-30%], and increased calories, the weight came off. [and my energy levels improved dramatically!]

This is all why study after study shows that if you change the macrnutrient ratio, increasing the fat and reducing the carbs, very different things happen to the body's metabolism. And that is because fat does NOT make one fat, nor are calories the main ingredient. An imporant element, but not the key.

<small>[ December 18, 2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

CBSNEWS.COM
Health News

October 13, 2003 17:40:09

Low-Carb Dieters Can Eat More


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Oct. 13, 2003

(AP) The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than those on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention — long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins — that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded."

continue at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/15/health/main540776.shtml

<small>[ December 18, 2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Just J:
<strong> Oh, and did someone here mention Collage Video, or was that somewhere else? Either way, if you're looking for good exercise videos, they're a great place to start. The Firm, Christi Taylor, Gin Miller, and Tae Bo are all excellent. And all also way beyond my abilities right now. *sigh* Ah, well. That's why I'm getting the gym membership for Christmas. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I love CollageVideo! They have excellent service and such a great variety of tapes. Which Firms do you have? Have you tried Cathe Frederich?

Ok Melody, I picked up the book today and also a 'kit' that contains Atkins recipes, meal plans, little 'take with you' guides, and a motivational cd. I'm signing up (in my head) to actually START the diet January 1st! But I'll use my time before then to read up and get an idea of how I'm going to do this! My hubby says to COUNT HIM OUT! He LOVES his bread and taters and just can't live without em. I don't care...I like him fluffy ;-)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane:
Hi whippit, I agree with most of what you say about glucose metabolism and storage as fat, however, the average person is not an endurance athlete and the average person consumes extremely high levels of carbohydrates. The average American consumes 50%+ of their calories from carbohydrates, which has caused an epidemic of obesity. And it is EXCESS carbohydrates that are stored as fat, NOT FAT.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">i never mentioned that the average american is a high endurance athlete, either. in fact, i said it was the extreme. merely the consumption of carbohydrate is not what i was putting forth -- it's the consumption of the wrong sorts of carbohydrate (simple vs. complex -- especially fibrous ones) that the average american is consuming in addition to the amount ... which i argue is significantly higher than 50 percent because the carbohydrate is consumed without a source of quality protein and as a stand alone meal (baked potato for lunch, anyone?). i presently eat just at 50 percent carb and am a 235 pound person with 14 percent body fat. i am moderately active and somewhat insulin resistant. but each of the seven meals i have also has protein and healthy fat. editmy maintenance caloric level is about 3400 calories, btw.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I would absolutely disagree with the philosophy of calories in/calories out, it is very refutable, just ask any endocrinologist. Basic knowledge of endocrinology rules this out on the basis that very different things happen when carbohydrates are consumed versus fat. The body metabolizes them differently and as I said above, glucose must be burned off before it EVER gets to the stored body fat.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">no one is arguing that these macros are metabolized the same way.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, the more glucose you produce, the less fat you will burn. Any excess glucose is stored as body fat.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">not if the glucose is being synthesized. how does that synthesis happen? by moving your body.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It always comes back to macronutrient ratio as study after study shows. Sure, metabolism can slow some when calories are reduced</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">no. it always slows down. that's physiology 101.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">but even in studies where calories are EQUAL but the ratios are different [high fat versus high carb] the high fat/low carb groups always win out. Calories in/calories out IGNORES that simple truth that is known by every endocrinologist. it is Endocrinology 101. There have been a flood of studies done on low carb diets</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">and the vast majority of these studies have been done with clinicly obese subjects who are prone to hypothyroidism and diabetes (hence the endocrinologists view). which is where i think you've missed the point i was making about calories in/calories out. i never said super low calorie diets are the secret to fat loss. in fact i argue that they're harmful.

as i said before, a person whose exercise doesn't extend beyond simple daily activity and who weighs 150 pounds, a maintenance diet is 1800 to 2000 calories (give or take). so it stands to reason that an obese person will have a basal metabolic rate (a maintenance caloric level) higher than most conventional wisdom put forth in the wake of the low fat/low calorie hoohah would have us believe. using the 'body weight X 12' example, a 350 pound person would require 4200 calories per day to maintain their present weight. in the same way your 1100 calories bonked your metabolism and told your body to store fat, so too will 2000 calories bonk a 350 pound person's.

a moderate reduction of calories and/or the addition of some additional exercise would put them into a calorie deficit. at a deficit of 500 calories per day, the person would drop a pound per week. 4200 minus 500 is significantly higher than many doctors and nutrtionists even 10 years ago would have recommended.

now, because we're talking about the obese, we have to also account for the insulin sensitvity which can be dramatic. this sort of macronutrient management is the exception rather than the rule for the average pereson. or would you argue that obese people constitute the average?

now on the other side of the calories in/calories out tenet is consuming too many. take the same lightly-active 150 pound person and feed them 2800 calories per day ... chances are they will get fat no matter what their macro ratio is. why? because they consume more than they can use. surely you can agree with this, yes?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But haven't you just agreed with what I said?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">yes! see my points above. too few calories and your body adapts by storing fat because your basic energy requirements aren't being met with the food consumed. the famine response is designed to prolong your life, so it won't catabolize itself when calories are in dramatic deficit.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If calories were all that mattered, then I would have lost weight at 1100 instead of 2000.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">this isn't what i argued.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Lowering calories was not the answer, changing my ratio was the answer. I was literally starving because I was on a high carb/low fat/low calorie diet, which all started at 1500 calories a day and went downhill from there over a 4 month period of time.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">you were literally starving. period.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Had my ratio been different, I would have lost weight at 1100 calories, but a lack of fat prevented that.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">the lack of fat wasn't the sole reason. (and i don't agree that ultra-low fat diets are good. they're not.) as i said, too few calories regardelss of any ratio always triggers a famine response.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I started off at 1500 calories per day and lost 2 pounds, then stalled. I then reduced calories down to 1300, gained 2 pounds, and then reduced down to 1100, losing nothing.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">dialing down calories so dramatically is always a mistake. it's that famine response again.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Before, at 2000 calories on a high carb diet, I was gaining weight. But when I dramatically increased my fat intake to 65% of my calories [from 25-30%], and increased calories, the weight came off. [and my energy levels improved dramatically!]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">and i state again that it is what your body body needed all along. out of curiosity, what sorts of carbs were you eating during the 200 calorie, hi-carb diet?

also, you said that changing your macro ratios, even at 1100 calories would have re-started your weight loss. would you also argue that increasing them to , say, 6500 calories, with the same proportional change in macros, would have also re-started your weight loss?

good debate!

<small>[ December 19, 2003, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: whippit ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane:
<strong> CBSNEWS.COM
Health News

October 13, 2003 17:40:09

Low-Carb Dieters Can Eat More


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Oct. 13, 2003

(AP) The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than those on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention ? long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins ? that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded."

continue at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/15/health/main540776.shtml </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">i too disagree that a calorie is a calorie. calories in/calories out is a different concept altogether.

i've seen this report, too. but what's missing from this? what descriptions do we have of the people in the low fat group? in the low carb group? what were their caloric maintenance levels? what about exersize? were both group's consumed calories too low prior to the study? none of these important questions is answered. and they should be.

Hope,
Good for you! You may have to share with me some of your recipes, as all I have is the Atkins book. I'm going to give it a try at least. I'm lost about what whippit and Melodylane are debating....I just want to lose the weight! Whatever method we use, I know it takes a lot of motivation and will power, and will not happen overnight.
I got on my stationary bike for 30 min. yesterday, whoopee!
Melody, did you say you have a good low carb cheesecake recipe?
KK

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by whippit:
] it's the consumption of the wrong sorts of carbohydrate (simple vs. complex -- especially fibrous ones) that the average american is consuming in addition to the amount ... which i argue is significantly higher than 50 percent because the carbohydrate is consumed without a source of quality protein and as a stand alone meal (baked potato for lunch, anyone?). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But carbs are carbs. Some are certainly worse than others, but all of them cause an insulin response. The body does not differentiate between the sugar in a potato and that in a Snickers bar. The blood sugar spike may vary and come slower or faster, but it is all the same. [unless you talk to the American Diabetic Association, but that is another joke, another day!]

This is why low glycemic-index carbs are always the focus on low carb diets at the exclusion of starchier carbs.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I would absolutely disagree with the philosophy of calories in/calories out, it is very refutable, just ask any endocrinologist. Basic knowledge of endocrinology rules this out on the basis that very different things happen when carbohydrates are consumed versus fat. The body metabolizes them differently and as I said above, glucose must be burned off before it EVER gets to the stored body fat.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">no one is arguing that these macros are metabolized the same way.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So then you would agree that fat and protein are condusive to weight loss and excessive carbohydrates are not? You say you agree that macronutrients are metabolized differently, then you also have to agree with my previous comment.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, the more glucose you produce, the less fat you will burn. Any excess glucose is stored as body fat.not if the glucose is being synthesized. how does that synthesis happen? by moving your body.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That doesn't change the fact the body does not burn its stored body fat UNTIL the glucose is burned off. Nor does it guarantee that one will lose weight from exercising if that is the point you are trying to make here. Studies show that many exercisers don't.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It always comes back to macronutrient ratio as study after study shows. Sure, metabolism can slow some when calories are reduced</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">no. it always slows down. that's physiology 101.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">but even in studies where calories are EQUAL but the ratios are different [high fat versus high carb] the high fat/low carb groups always win out. Calories in/calories out IGNORES that simple truth that is known by every endocrinologist. it is Endocrinology 101. There have been a flood of studies done on low carb diets</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">and the vast majority of these studies have been done with clinicly obese subjects who are prone to hypothyroidism and diabetes (hence the endocrinologists view). which is where i think you've missed the point i was making about calories in/calories out. i never said super low calorie diets are the secret to fat loss. in fact i argue that they're harmful. [/quote]

But the point is not that the subjects were obese, the subjects were the alike in both groups, the key difference in weight loss was always MACRONUTRIENT ratio and not calories. Some of the studies have been done obese individuals, certainly not all by a long shot. Just look at the famous Kekwick study, they were athletes, along with many other important studies on this question.

The principles of glucose and fat metabolism are UNIVERSAL and don't apply only to obese people. This process is certainly EXAGGERATED in such individuals, though, via insulinism. Nor is there evidence that they were hypothyroid. However, if you support the notion that "calories in/calories out" is the key, then YOU ARE supporting the notion that calories are key. If you AREN'T supporting calories in/calories out then I am not sure what you are suggesting.

Whippit, when you say you believe in calories in/calories out then how can you say that you don't believe in low calorie diets? That saying professes a belief in the calorie factor but you say you don't believe it here. So how would you define the concept of calories in/calories out without taking into account the effect that the different macronutrients have on metabolism? I am trying to understand exactly what YOU mean when you it.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">also, you said that changing your macro ratios, even at 1100 calories would have re-started your weight loss. would you also argue that increasing them to , say, 6500 calories, with the same proportional change in macros, would have also re-started your weight loss?

good debate! [/]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, not at all! Because the body, will not go into ketosis when calories are too high, REGARDLESS of how LOW carbohydrates are. And it is also suspected that even EXCESSIVE amounts of fat can be converted to glucose via a little known process called ASP.

edited to say: whippit, what a joy to discuss this with you! Sorry for the messed up quotes in some spots - please try and sort through the best you can and I will clean up when I get home! Thanks! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

<small>[ December 19, 2003, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>