Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/health/05brod.html
With Fruits and Vegetables, More Can Be Less By JANE E. BRODY Published: October 5, 2004 What determines how much we eat and how much we weigh? Is it the amount of fat in foods, the presence of carbohydrates, the size of our portions, what we drink with our meals, that elusive trait called willpower? Conflicting popular advice can prompt would-be dieters to give up before they even start. The good news based on solid research is that you can eat more - probably more food than you're now eating - and weigh less, if you choose more of the right kinds of foods. At a recent meeting on the worldwide obesity epidemic, important insights into successful weight management were offered by Dr. Barbara J. Rolls, a professor of behavioral health at Penn State. She began her presentation on weight control with this irrefutable statement: "Calories count, no matter what you read in the press. The laws of thermodynamics have not been reversed." With respect to weight gain and loss, the laws of thermodynamics can be translated as: Calories consumed must be used or they will be stored as body fat. The body does not waste energy, no matter what its source. When people are placed on carefully controlled calorie-restricted diets, the amount of fat in the diet - whether 25 percent or 45 percent of calories - has little effect on weight loss, Dr. Rolls reported. People who claim that they can eat as much as they want (of protein and fat, for example) and lose weight as long as they avoid certain kinds of foods (carbohydrates, for example) are really eating less (that is, fewer calories) than they did before. But what about a majority of people concerned about weight control who are not interested in cutting out breads, cereals, grapes, bananas, watermelon, carrots, beets, potatoes, rice and pasta (not to mention wine, beer, cakes, cookies, ice cream and other carbohydrate-rich foods banned on Atkins-style diets)? Are they doomed to remaining hopelessly overweight? Not according to Dr. Rolls, an expert on satiety and satiation, words that refer to what and how much a person has to eat at a meal to feel satisfied and stop eating. Many characteristics of foods affect satiety: how they look, taste and feel in the mouth; how much chewing they require; the nutrients they contain; how densely packed the calories are, and, independent of caloric density, the volume of food consumed. She does not dispute the popular premise that the "macronutrients" in foods - protein, fat, carbohydrates, alcohol and fiber - influence caloric intake and use. For example, calorie for calorie, protein appears to be the most satiating nutrient. Furthermore, during overeating, the body burns more calories to metabolize protein and carbohydrates than it does when processing fats, which are the nutrients most efficiently stored as body fat. Food Volume Counts So what makes your body say you've eaten enough? Dr. Rolls's studies on satiety have clearly demonstrated an overriding influence of food volume, prompting her to write an excellent book, "The Volumetrics Weight-Control Plan: Feel Full on Fewer Calories" (HarperCollins, 2000) with Robert A. Barnett. She found that the amount of calories in a given volume of food makes a big difference in how many calories people consume at a given meal, and throughout the day. In nutritional parlance, this is called the energy density of the food. The greater the energy density - the more calories packed into a given weight or volume of food - the easier it is to overeat. "People tend to eat a consistent weight of food," Dr. Rolls has found. When consuming a calorie-dense food high in fat, people are likely to eat more calories just to get in a satisfying amount of food. What increases food volume without adding calories? You guessed it. Water. And what foods naturally contain the most water? You got that right too. Fruits and vegetables. "People given the message to eat more fruits and vegetables lost significantly more weight than those told to eat less fat," Dr. Rolls said. "Advice to eat more is a lot more effective than advice to eat less. Positive messages about what can be eaten are more effective than restrictive messages about what not to eat." |
John WIlliams wrote:
(quoting Jane E Brody) People who claim that they can eat as much as they want (of protein and fat, for example) and lose weight as long as they avoid certain kinds of foods (carbohydrates, for example) are really eating less (that is, fewer calories) than they did before. Yes, they can "eat as much as they want". However, the absence of concentrated carbs sending their insulin and appetite signals out of whack means that "as much as they want", is far less than they used to want. But what about a majority of people concerned about weight control who are not interested in cutting out breads, cereals, grapes, bananas, watermelon, carrots, beets, potatoes, rice and pasta (not to mention wine, beer, cakes, cookies, ice cream and other carbohydrate-rich foods banned on Atkins-style diets)? Are they doomed to remaining hopelessly overweight? No, they'll still have to practice portion control, only it will be something they have to do very consciously, and contrary to what their appetite is saying to them. The difference for the LCer is that it's less difficult. Seldom does (IME) a low-carber need to force themselves to stop eating. |
Ignoramus7068 wrote:
|| I can relate my experience with "portion controlled dieting" vs. "low || carb dieting". || || Contrary to what that expert says, volume of food, quantity of water || etc, does not have a big effect on my satiety. (except for the first || few days, probably the same for others that show in short term || experiments) I could have my stomach completely full of water and || vegetables and still be hungry, meaning thinking about food and || wanting more. || || Second, saying that low carb diets are really low calorie diets || because, even though the dieter eats all he wants, he eats low cal, || completely misses the point. I don't think that statement misses the point, it just makes a different one. || || The point is that a person who would not regulate his calorie intake || on a high carb diet, can now regulate it on a high fat diet. The || calorie regulation system that was thought to be broken, can work by || itself, once I changed what I eat. If I overeat fat, I skip the next || meal or eat a lot less afterwards, because I am not hungry. I agree. But I think non-low-carbers who don't have issues with BG control just can't understand this point. || || For me, low carb is not a "metabolic loophole", using Dr Atkins || words. It is not "cheating the system". It is a way to eat to || function normally, in the sense that such that normal appetite can || control weight. || || My hope is that this low carbing is not harmful to my health and that || my body won't adapt to it, after a while, in ways that would make me || gain weight on LC. I can't imagine such a thing as you body adapting to LC so that you start gaining weight. What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone. |
Ignoramus7068 wrote:
|| In article , Roger Zoul wrote: ||| Ignoramus7068 wrote: ||||| I can relate my experience with "portion controlled dieting" vs. ||||| "low carb dieting". ||||| ||||| Contrary to what that expert says, volume of food, quantity of ||||| water etc, does not have a big effect on my satiety. (except for ||||| the first ||||| few days, probably the same for others that show in short term ||||| experiments) I could have my stomach completely full of water and ||||| vegetables and still be hungry, meaning thinking about food and ||||| wanting more. ||||| ||||| Second, saying that low carb diets are really low calorie diets ||||| because, even though the dieter eats all he wants, he eats low ||||| cal, completely misses the point. ||| ||| I don't think that statement misses the point, it just makes a ||| different one. || || Fair enough. But, an honest and informed person wanting to make a || more complete description of low carbing, should not miss the point || that || I mentioned. Yes, I agree that that point SHOULD be mentioned in any discussion about LCing. || || Jane Brody, author of books like "High Carb Eating" etc, a low fata || dvocate, did miss it. I see. Perhaps she is blinded by the notion that to lose weight it is necessary to reduce calories. Period. While most will find that a true statement, the real issue, afaic, is in how to reduce calories. That's where LC shines, IMO. Just like you, eating a lot of low-calorie foods with lots of water does not reduce my appetite. If that were the case, I could just eat a couple head of lettuce a day and be happy. NOT! || ||||| ||||| The point is that a person who would not regulate his calorie ||||| intake ||||| on a high carb diet, can now regulate it on a high fat diet. The ||||| calorie regulation system that was thought to be broken, can work ||||| by itself, once I changed what I eat. If I overeat fat, I skip ||||| the next meal or eat a lot less afterwards, because I am not ||||| hungry. ||| ||| I agree. But I think non-low-carbers who don't have issues with BG ||| control just can't understand this point. || || Which is unfortunate. || ||||| For me, low carb is not a "metabolic loophole", using Dr Atkins ||||| words. It is not "cheating the system". It is a way to eat to ||||| function normally, in the sense that such that normal appetite can ||||| control weight. ||||| ||||| My hope is that this low carbing is not harmful to my health and ||||| that ||||| my body won't adapt to it, after a while, in ways that would make ||||| me gain weight on LC. ||| ||| I can't imagine such a thing as you body adapting to LC so that you ||| start gaining weight. || || I hope that you are right. || ||| What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat ||| other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone. || || This is absolutely true, that's why I am not ready to say that "this || diet is forever" etc. Nothing is forever. However, it could be 80 or 90% of forever. Shooting for perfection is not likely to work. But to realize that if you go off LC for a period of time and then come back to it, or do some other variation of the notion that you devise because it works for you, may allow you to implement an effective strategy for the long term. |
I agree with the part about calories. However, her theory about volume does
not hold water. (pun intended) In an experiment where test subjects ate a liquid shake from a spout, the volume they ate varied with calories. It took about two weeks for the test subjects to adjust the volume they ate after experimenters changed the calorie density. This two week delay explains why the idiot doctor finds people eating the same volume, when she switches them to foods with a higher calorie density. She would have to feed the high calorie food to her test subjects for at least two weeks and then measure the volume of the eating. She would find that they would eat tiny portions. Stomach size has nothing to do with it. |
Ignoramus7068 wrote:
|| In article , Roger Zoul wrote: ||| Ignoramus7068 wrote: ||||| Jane Brody, author of books like "High Carb Eating" etc, a low fat ||||| advocate, did miss it. ||| ||| I see. Perhaps she is blinded by the notion that to lose weight it ||| is necessary to reduce calories. Period. While most will find that ||| a true statement, the real issue, afaic, is in how to reduce ||| calories. That's where LC shines, IMO. || || Exactly. || ||| Just like you, eating a lot of low-calorie foods with lots of water ||| does not reduce my appetite. If that were the case, I could just ||| eat a couple head of lettuce a day and be happy. NOT! || || Same here. || |||||| What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat |||||| other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone. ||||| ||||| This is absolutely true, that's why I am not ready to say that ||||| "this ||||| diet is forever" etc. ||| ||| Nothing is forever. However, it could be 80 or 90% of forever. ||| Shooting for perfection is not likely to work. But to realize that ||| if you go off LC for a period of time and then come back to it, or ||| do some other variation of the notion that you devise because it ||| works for you, may allow you to implement an effective strategy for ||| the long term. || || All good points, plus, so far, I am very happy on this diet. I have || some experience with not eating sweets, it's been almost 1.5 years || since I stopped eating them, and I do not miss them at all. So, || maybe, || my current diet will prove palatable over a long time. Maintaining a WOE for 1.5 years has got to stand for something! Most can't hang for 2 weeks! |
Ignoramus7068 wrote:
|| In article , Roger Zoul wrote: ||| Ignoramus7068 wrote: ||||| Jane Brody, author of books like "High Carb Eating" etc, a low fat ||||| advocate, did miss it. ||| ||| I see. Perhaps she is blinded by the notion that to lose weight it ||| is necessary to reduce calories. Period. While most will find that ||| a true statement, the real issue, afaic, is in how to reduce ||| calories. That's where LC shines, IMO. || || Exactly. || ||| Just like you, eating a lot of low-calorie foods with lots of water ||| does not reduce my appetite. If that were the case, I could just ||| eat a couple head of lettuce a day and be happy. NOT! || || Same here. || |||||| What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat |||||| other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone. ||||| ||||| This is absolutely true, that's why I am not ready to say that ||||| "this ||||| diet is forever" etc. ||| ||| Nothing is forever. However, it could be 80 or 90% of forever. ||| Shooting for perfection is not likely to work. But to realize that ||| if you go off LC for a period of time and then come back to it, or ||| do some other variation of the notion that you devise because it ||| works for you, may allow you to implement an effective strategy for ||| the long term. || || All good points, plus, so far, I am very happy on this diet. I have || some experience with not eating sweets, it's been almost 1.5 years || since I stopped eating them, and I do not miss them at all. So, || maybe, || my current diet will prove palatable over a long time. Maintaining a WOE for 1.5 years has got to stand for something! Most can't hang for 2 weeks! |
"Ignoramus7068" wrote in message
... I can relate my experience with "portion controlled dieting" vs. "low carb dieting". Contrary to what that expert says, volume of food, quantity of water etc, does not have a big effect on my satiety. (except for the first few days, probably the same for others that show in short term experiments) I could have my stomach completely full of water and vegetables and still be hungry, meaning thinking about food and wanting more. Second, saying that low carb diets are really low calorie diets because, even though the dieter eats all he wants, he eats low cal, completely misses the point. The point is that a person who would not regulate his calorie intake on a high carb diet, can now regulate it on a high fat diet. The calorie regulation system that was thought to be broken, can work by itself, once I changed what I eat. If I overeat fat, I skip the next meal or eat a lot less afterwards, because I am not hungry. For me, low carb is not a "metabolic loophole", using Dr Atkins words. It is not "cheating the system". It is a way to eat to function normally, in the sense that such that normal appetite can control weight. My hope is that this low carbing is not harmful to my health and that my body won't adapt to it, after a while, in ways that would make me gain weight on LC. i 223/173/180 I'm mostly agnostic with regards to the claims of LC diets. I suspect they can be useful for some folks, especially those who don't exercise very much (as an avid cyclist, I doubt Atkins would keep me fueled). And I also know that when I've tried restricting fats, I found myself with more cravings, and afternoon sleepiness. So, clearly there's a "grain of truth" (pun intended) in the LC approach. Currently, I try for a somewhat "higher-protein and good fats, with lots of fruit and veggies" diet, and find self-regulation to be pretty easy (most days...). My only concern with the Atkins style approach is (as I understand it), the de-emphasis on fruits and vegetables. Many recent studies have consistently shown that folks who eat more fruits and vegetables have less health problems (cancers, in particular). See http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fruits.html for instance. So, are the Atkins folks getting enough fruits and veggies in their diets? FWIW, some experts recommend 9 servings of fruit and vegetables per day, while others recommend 5 or more. Are Atkins folks getting near these recommended levels? GG |
Ignoramus7068 wrote:
:: In article , Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Ignoramus7068 wrote: ::::: In article , Roger Zoul wrote: :::::: Ignoramus7068 wrote: :::::::: Jane Brody, author of books like "High Carb Eating" etc, a low :::::::: fat advocate, did miss it. :::::: :::::: I see. Perhaps she is blinded by the notion that to lose weight :::::: it is necessary to reduce calories. Period. While most will :::::: find that a true statement, the real issue, afaic, is in how to :::::: reduce calories. That's where LC shines, IMO. ::::: ::::: Exactly. ::::: :::::: Just like you, eating a lot of low-calorie foods with lots of :::::: water does not reduce my appetite. If that were the case, I :::::: could just eat a couple head of lettuce a day and be happy. NOT! ::::: ::::: Same here. ::::: ::::::::: What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat ::::::::: other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone. :::::::: :::::::: This is absolutely true, that's why I am not ready to say that :::::::: "this :::::::: diet is forever" etc. :::::: :::::: Nothing is forever. However, it could be 80 or 90% of forever. :::::: Shooting for perfection is not likely to work. But to realize :::::: that if you go off LC for a period of time and then come back to :::::: it, or do some other variation of the notion that you devise :::::: because it works for you, may allow you to implement an :::::: effective strategy for the long term. ::::: ::::: All good points, plus, so far, I am very happy on this diet. I ::::: have some experience with not eating sweets, it's been almost 1.5 ::::: years since I stopped eating them, and I do not miss them at all. ::::: So, maybe, ::::: my current diet will prove palatable over a long time. ::: ::: Maintaining a WOE for 1.5 years has got to stand for something! ::: Most can't hang for 2 weeks! ::: ::: :: :: Roger, I appreciate the compliment, but, to be fair, I did change my :: WOE. I was on a portion controlled moderate carb diet until july, and :: changed to paleo in July. The part about not eating sweets did not :: change though. You made an adjustment....not eating junk for 1.5 years is significant, imo. |
GaryG wrote:
:: "Ignoramus7068" wrote in message :: ... ::: I can relate my experience with "portion controlled dieting" vs. ::: "low carb dieting". ::: ::: Contrary to what that expert says, volume of food, quantity of water ::: etc, does not have a big effect on my satiety. (except for the first ::: few days, probably the same for others that show in short term ::: experiments) I could have my stomach completely full of water and ::: vegetables and still be hungry, meaning thinking about food and ::: wanting more. ::: ::: Second, saying that low carb diets are really low calorie diets ::: because, even though the dieter eats all he wants, he eats low cal, ::: completely misses the point. ::: ::: The point is that a person who would not regulate his calorie intake ::: on a high carb diet, can now regulate it on a high fat diet. The ::: calorie regulation system that was thought to be broken, can work by ::: itself, once I changed what I eat. If I overeat fat, I skip the next ::: meal or eat a lot less afterwards, because I am not hungry. ::: ::: For me, low carb is not a "metabolic loophole", using Dr Atkins ::: words. It is not "cheating the system". It is a way to eat to ::: function normally, in the sense that such that normal appetite can ::: control weight. ::: ::: My hope is that this low carbing is not harmful to my health and ::: that my body won't adapt to it, after a while, in ways that would ::: make me gain weight on LC. ::: ::: i ::: 223/173/180 :: :: I'm mostly agnostic with regards to the claims of LC diets. I :: suspect they can be useful for some folks, especially those who :: don't exercise very much (as an avid cyclist, I doubt Atkins would :: keep me fueled). And I also know that when I've tried restricting :: fats, I found myself with more cravings, and afternoon sleepiness. :: So, clearly there's a "grain of truth" (pun intended) in the LC :: approach. Currently, I try for a somewhat "higher-protein and good :: fats, with lots of fruit and veggies" diet, and find self-regulation :: to be pretty easy (most days...). :: :: My only concern with the Atkins style approach is (as I understand :: it), the de-emphasis on fruits and vegetables. Many recent studies :: have consistently shown that folks who eat more fruits and :: vegetables have less health problems (cancers, in particular). See :: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fruits.html for instance. :: :: So, are the Atkins folks getting enough fruits and veggies in their :: diets? FWIW, some experts recommend 9 servings of fruit and :: vegetables per day, while others recommend 5 or more. Are Atkins :: folks getting near these recommended levels? Gary - exactly who are "Aktins folks"? Perhaps you should read up on Atkins and other LC plans, because you don't really know much about them. :: :: GG |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
WeightLossBanter