Calories still matter, even on a low-carb plan

[cleochatra]

I didn't want to hi-jack the other thread with a discourse of watching calorie counts, especially on a low-carb Diet. Still, calories do matter, regardless of way of eating.

All Diets are Essentially Calorie- Controlled

Lately I've been running into the notion that there are people out there who don't think that low-carb regimens are also really low-cal regimens, minus the starvation and feelings of dissatisfaction.

I've had people come to me and say, "How did you lose 30 pounds in less than a month?" Answering this honestly has caused some brouhaha. Some people think Atkins is a mystical fount of weight loss that has nothing to do with caloric intake. Others are certain that calorie counting removes the one thing that makes the Atkins plan special.

I say pish.

If even Atkins notes that there are many metabolisms and many differences in our unique bodies, how is it, then, that we are assigned arbitrary BMR numbers and are expected to force-feed ourselves to those numbers?

Does this make any sense?

People who have weight loss surgery take in roughly 600-800 calories a day. They lose an immense amount of weight. The doctors are happy, the person is happy. But should the average Atkins dieter do the same thing minus the surgery, loses the weight as effortlessly, and doesn't have the complications from the surgery, accomplishing the same feat as the person with surgery, it is met with negativity?

Does this make any sense?

Starvation mode is a term thrown about loosely, and it doesn't apply in many ways. If exercising, a person's muscle will be built, not atrophied for energy. And our organs will not be digested by our bodies when the easiest thing in the world for our bods to convert to energy is our immense amounts of fat stores! Again, people who have had weight loss surgery are not in fear of losing their organs and we are?

Does this make sense?

I think that people sometimes don't want to admit that Atkins is, in its very nature, a calorie-controlled program. I can understand this. While I was following this way of eating at first I had a very hard time believing this is actually a calorie-controlled way of eating and fought that idea tooth and nail, until I looked at the numbers. I see now that this is, in fact, the only calorie-controlled method that works, leaves me feeling full, satisfied and without any fear of cheating or falling off the wagon.

But I won't arbitrarily feed myself to reach BMR when my body tells me it doesn't want the extra food.

Another way of looking at this:

Why are we to feed our current arbitrary BMR?

Doesn't it make more sense to feed our goal weight BMR? afterall, where are we going to be eating for maintenance for the rest of our lives? Where do we most need to prepare ourselves to remain for perpetuity?

Weight Watchers recognizes this, and while being a low-cal diet, knows that the end result must always be the body's goal weight. The proram takes a person from their current 'Bmr" intake to their final one, incrementally, according to weight loss. It would be an excellent plan were it not for the fact that I starved the entire time eating higher-glycemic foods!

While the first 14 days on Atkins is NOT to be a calorie counting experience, but rather one of de-toxing and cleansing, and renewal, once a person clears that point, it is important to begin taking note of what is being eaten, both calorically and carb-wise, by using fit day and by ensuring the percentages also look intact.

Exercise is crucial, as is taking supplements. But I've lost a lot of weight in this last month, and it wasn't because I ate bag after bag of pork rinds to assuage my arbitrary BMR numbers.

A person can get fat on Atkins by taking in too many calories. In the end, it always comes down to caloric intake.

[cleochatra]

Also adding:

The fact that Atkins is calorically-controlled in no way removes the special aspects of this way of eating. In fact, it actually strengthens the science behind the weight loss and the real effectiveness of this way of eating.

If society realized that this was low-cal done right, they might soften their resolve towards learning about this way of eating.

Socratic dialogue dictates that to debate or discuss differing ideas there must be a beginning point upon which we all agree. As a nation of calorie counters, why overlook the most imperative starting-point of all?

Perhaps this is where Dr Atkins really went wrong. Instead of emphasizing loss due to calorie-control, he sought to start educating people based on glycemic indexes, lipolysis and ketosis... things which most people aren't motivated to learn about because there are too many unknown syllables and terms which probably don't apply to them.

But start out discussing caloric importance and lightbulbs everywhere begin to hum!

So why not just cut right to the chase?

[ValidRouge]

Great points Cleo. Thanks!!

[2big4mysize]

Atkins is calorie control through carbohydraste control period. Dr Atkins controls the hard to control stuff on his paln like carbs because of the bloodsugar spikeing and out of control eating that can lead to becasue he knew that fats and proteins are self limiting in their intake IF we follow the rules and stop eating when our HUNGER is satisfied. not full to the rim eyepopping body is satisfied or full. Feed the HUNGER lose the weight. it is that simple. yes because of the higher amount of claories it take to convert fats and proteins to energy then it does carbs a USDA (30/10/60) 1200 cal plan will be the same as a 1500 cal Atkins (65/30/5) plan day as far as calories spent in managing didgestion of foods.

[wannabethintoo]

Ok but the real question is: Is Cleo back or not?

[LOWCARBINCLEVELANDOH]

Cleo is right. I have the 80 lbs to prove it. oh wait...no... I don't have them anymore!

[LC_Dave]

Well,

I feel I have to respond, partly because my other thread was hijacked! (CLEO!!), and because I'm considered an anti-counting type.

I think this arguement or debate is a bet like a semantics debate.
Also I had started another thread on this: http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.c...2&page=1&pp=10 (The Great Debate: Calories in Calories Out)

Cleo I don't think Dr. Atkins 'went wrong' as you say, but perhaps he was mis-interpreted.

At the end of the day we will all eat individually as we see fit. I agree with you that I don't see the point in force feeding oneself!

Personally I think all that stuff about calories, BMR, etc is just a load of bunk! It all seems to be an inaccurate way to control consumption as we all metabloise food differently. As you say if someone is satisfied and eats less than the BMR, then so be it!

When I did Weight Watchers and lost 30 kilos (66 pounds), I was starving all the time! I would just about pass out! That was me on that program - I am not good restricting calories and upping the carbs!

I've never been as successful at losing weight, or less hungry, on the Atkins program!

Not all fat people want to over-consume food, but when we are on the carb roller coaster it makes us want to!

Atkins reducing my want to over eat, and yes I reduce my calorie intake as a result.

But I don't count my calories! Because I'm not a gluttonous Pig! I don't even know anyone who is!

It all depends on what you classify as calorie restriction: If you base it purely on the numbers, then I say that Atkins is not about calorie restriction. Calorie restriction or stabilisation is a natural by-product of the atkins program.

You have a got a whole lot of other things happening:-

• Proper nutritional supplimentation removes the need for certain cravings
• Elimination of highly processed foods - No need to explain that benefit!
• Hunger Elimination - I was more hungry off-atkins binging on Junk Food!!
• Adequate Vegetable intake - defies malnutrition.
• Exercise - well this brings benefit whatever you are doing
• Protein sparring - Adequate protein and fat helps fight against muscle canabilisation.
• Taste! The ATkins diet is very tasty!

So much more to it than tracking your calories on fitday!

I prefer the emphasis on PORTION CONTROL than CALORIE RESTRICTION. It is much easier to establish a routine of eating where you have a certain serving size, than to carry around a calculator and weighing machine.

With 'portion control' and 'carbohydrate restriction' you don't have to 'Count Calories' !!

[sadie147]

honestly, i've found when i got close, and reached goal i DID have to count calories.


I was like you before dave, but manged to gain 8 lbs back this past summer in maintenance strictly from too much calories (I've never struggled to keep carbs low). It's very different when you are at/near goal. I beleive that is one of the big struggles. I think learing when you are full and learning to eat the proper ratios of cals/carbs/ fats and keeping up the exercise is what makes a successfull goalie.

i honestly believe a calorie is a calorie, and eventually too many calories= weight gain.

[fiddlejen]

You know, my experience tells me a bit different. Calories do matter, but - a calorie is not entirely just a calorie. I lose more slowly at a higher calorie count, but I do keep losing. But, at that same calorie count including more carbs, I don't keep losing. (Obviously, this does mean that, higher on the ladder it will matter more.)

I've been finding recently that if my meals are too tasty I continue to feel hungry as I'm eating. If they're bland, it tastes good but then I stop wanting any more. (I saw some study - as so-called "news" - online that validated the effect.) So I was making rather bland food choices. My body, I could tell, was getting a sufficiency, not an excess. HOWEVER, at the beginning of this week all the sudden, in the grocery and everywhere, FOOD - not Atkin-safe food, but bad stuff - began JUMPING out at me and giving me terrible cravings like I thought I couldn't resist. I almost didn't.

But instead I went home and found some good recipes on here, made some very-tasty-but-nutritious food. Then I ate till my awakened appetite was satisfied, and it was a lot more than I had been eating. Way more than what my body needs. My calories went up a lot higher. I've done this a few days in a row, and now I'm ready to go back to bland-stuff again.

BUT if I was concerning myself with calories TOO I would have not satisfied my appetite as I did. The appetite was a REAL problem for about 3 days until I quenched it with a surplus of tasty food. If I hadn't done so I don't think I could have withstood the temptation. Maybe I didn't lose as much this week as the week before, but, look, I'm still on Atkins.

My copy of his book says not to combine carb-watching with other methods, such as counting calories. It makes it way too complicated, too heavy of a burden. Not that no one should ever do so, just that, with the natural appetite-lowering effect of low-carb, for most people carb control plus honest portion control will do the trick, and adding carorie-restricting seems to negate the basic simplicity of the diet.

[addyosu]

ohh I love the post. I was wondering this all along because truthfully I think I would get better results on a low fat, low calorie diet. However, I decided that I haven't really given this diet or rather WOE a honest shot. So here I am! I am much more satisfied, but knowing that I should be watch calories as well I think will really help me in my last 25 lbs. Thanks for the post.