Low cal vs Low carb - my own results

Interesting! I was looking over old weekly spreadsheets on my computer
from 2003, when I originally started Atkins.

Now that I've been on my current low calorie diet for 120 days, I can
compare the results.

From 2/19/2003 to 6/20/2003 (121 days) on strict Atkins I went from
288.2 lb to 260.7 lb, a loss of 27.5 lb.

I can compare this to my current low calorie diet:

From 6/3/2005 to 10/1/2005 (120 days) I've gone from 275 lb to 239.8
lb, a loss of 35.2 lb.

So comparing two initial 120 day periods of both methods I've lost 1.3
times as much as I did on Atkins!

Comparing cummulative weight-losses on different days along the way is
also interesting:

Day Atkins Low-Cal
0 0 0 - start with no weight loss
7 5.5 5.5 - exactly the same loss the first week!
43 12.1 16.5 - low-cal has pulled ahead
63 18.7 20.2
91 22.0 30.8
120 27.5 35.2

So at least for me, a low-calorie diet has been faster almost from the
start than Atkins, even though I started over two years later and
started from a lower weight.

Interesting!

doug

what you have proven is that eating right and using all the food groups is
what your body wants, good information for you to keep in mind for the rest
of your life, good good good, Lee
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...
Interesting! I was looking over old weekly spreadsheets on my computer
from 2003, when I originally started Atkins.

Now that I've been on my current low calorie diet for 120 days, I can
compare the results.

From 2/19/2003 to 6/20/2003 (121 days) on strict Atkins I went from
288.2 lb to 260.7 lb, a loss of 27.5 lb.

I can compare this to my current low calorie diet:

From 6/3/2005 to 10/1/2005 (120 days) I've gone from 275 lb to 239.8
lb, a loss of 35.2 lb.

So comparing two initial 120 day periods of both methods I've lost 1.3
times as much as I did on Atkins!

Comparing cummulative weight-losses on different days along the way is
also interesting:

Day Atkins Low-Cal
0 0 0 - start with no weight loss
7 5.5 5.5 - exactly the same loss the first week!
43 12.1 16.5 - low-cal has pulled ahead
63 18.7 20.2
91 22.0 30.8
120 27.5 35.2

So at least for me, a low-calorie diet has been faster almost from the
start than Atkins, even though I started over two years later and
started from a lower weight.

Interesting!

doug

It's funny though to see how many people try to go around that one to find
that magic pill...

Anyone found it yet ? *grin*

Didn't think so.. baaaaahh there's always 0 pts soup !

--
Will~

"... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause."

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"Ignoramus3121" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:41:02 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote:
Interesting! I was looking over old weekly spreadsheets on my computer
from 2003, when I originally started Atkins.

Now that I've been on my current low calorie diet for 120 days, I can
compare the results.

From 2/19/2003 to 6/20/2003 (121 days) on strict Atkins I went from
288.2 lb to 260.7 lb, a loss of 27.5 lb.

I can compare this to my current low calorie diet:

From 6/3/2005 to 10/1/2005 (120 days) I've gone from 275 lb to 239.8
lb, a loss of 35.2 lb.

So comparing two initial 120 day periods of both methods I've lost 1.3
times as much as I did on Atkins!

Comparing cummulative weight-losses on different days along the way is
also interesting:

Day Atkins Low-Cal
0 0 0 - start with no weight loss
7 5.5 5.5 - exactly the same loss the first week!
43 12.1 16.5 - low-cal has pulled ahead
63 18.7 20.2
91 22.0 30.8
120 27.5 35.2

So at least for me, a low-calorie diet has been faster almost from the
start than Atkins, even though I started over two years later and
started from a lower weight.

I think that no one invented a faster method of weight loss than the
method of eating [a lot] less.

i

So at least for me, a low-calorie diet has been faster almost from the
start than Atkins, even though I started over two years later and
started from a lower weight.

Interesting!

Interesting indeed. I'd have predicted a bigger initial loss on
atkins, with atkins tailing off toward the end. In fact a more
conventional regime worked better for you.

Of course it's anecdotal, but it certainly shows that everyone is
different and the importance of finding something that works for YOU
rather than going with the crowd.

Ray (finding low carb helpful, but incredibly difficult)

Well said Ray !

--
Will~

"... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause."

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"rmr" wrote in message
...
So at least for me, a low-calorie diet has been faster almost from the
start than Atkins, even though I started over two years later and
started from a lower weight.

Interesting!

Interesting indeed. I'd have predicted a bigger initial loss on
atkins, with atkins tailing off toward the end. In fact a more
conventional regime worked better for you.

Of course it's anecdotal, but it certainly shows that everyone is
different and the importance of finding something that works for YOU
rather than going with the crowd.

Ray (finding low carb helpful, but incredibly difficult)

rmr wrote:

So at least for me, a low-calorie diet has been faster almost from the
start than Atkins, even though I started over two years later and
started from a lower weight.

Interesting!


Interesting indeed. I'd have predicted a bigger initial loss on
atkins, with atkins tailing off toward the end. In fact a more
conventional regime worked better for you.

Of course it's anecdotal, but it certainly shows that everyone is
different and the importance of finding something that works for YOU
rather than going with the crowd.

Ray (finding low carb helpful, but incredibly difficult)

I think low carb is just helpful insofar as it might help you control
your appetite. But all that stuff about not eating carbs blocking the
conversion of eaten fat into stored fat by preventing the release of
insulin seems to be smoke and mirrors.

The reason plain old low-calorie works better for me is because I am
limiting my calories. On low-carb I ended up just eating more calories.

That's all that really matters in the end.

doug

Willow wrote:

It's funny though to see how many people try to go around that one to find
that magic pill...

Anyone found it yet ? *grin*

Didn't think so.. baaaaahh there's always 0 pts soup !

Elixir of life, that stuff! Reminds me, must get some more butternut
squash and freeze a batch!

--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!

In article , Kate
Dicey wrote:

Willow wrote:

It's funny though to see how many people try to go around that one to find
that magic pill...

Anyone found it yet ? *grin*

Didn't think so.. baaaaahh there's always 0 pts soup !

Elixir of life, that stuff! Reminds me, must get some more butternut
squash and freeze a batch!

Butternut squash--zero points/ i don't think soi!

I cheat and put some barley in mine... so it's 1 pts for 3 cups instead of
0... but it fills me up much more..

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm barley soup

--
Will~

"... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause."

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"Kate Dicey" wrote in message
...
Willow wrote:

It's funny though to see how many people try to go around that one to
find
that magic pill...

Anyone found it yet ? *grin*

Didn't think so.. baaaaahh there's always 0 pts soup !

Elixir of life, that stuff! Reminds me, must get some more butternut
squash and freeze a batch!

--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!

IMHO: The best approach is to do both at once. Just because you are on
Atkins does not mean you can't count calories.

311/152/145


"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Interesting! I was looking over old weekly spreadsheets on my computer
from 2003, when I originally started Atkins.

Now that I've been on my current low calorie diet for 120 days, I can
compare the results.

From 2/19/2003 to 6/20/2003 (121 days) on strict Atkins I went from
288.2 lb to 260.7 lb, a loss of 27.5 lb.

I can compare this to my current low calorie diet:

From 6/3/2005 to 10/1/2005 (120 days) I've gone from 275 lb to 239.8
lb, a loss of 35.2 lb.

So comparing two initial 120 day periods of both methods I've lost 1.3
times as much as I did on Atkins!

Comparing cummulative weight-losses on different days along the way is
also interesting:

Day Atkins Low-Cal
0 0 0 - start with no weight loss
7 5.5 5.5 - exactly the same loss the first week!
43 12.1 16.5 - low-cal has pulled ahead
63 18.7 20.2
91 22.0 30.8
120 27.5 35.2

So at least for me, a low-calorie diet has been faster almost from the
start than Atkins, even though I started over two years later and
started from a lower weight.

Interesting!

doug