Has just low-carb ever worked for anybody?

Dawn Taylor wrote:
:: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:12:42 -0000, "~{}~HäñK~{}~"
:: announced in front of God and everybody:
::
::: I agree with the horizon programme. If you stop eating
::: fruit/pasta/rice and replace it with heavy cream whipped up with
::: splenda then you have to be kidding yourself if you think weight
::: loss will follow.
::
:: Well, probably not if that's *all* you eat. But most folks -- even
:: the deluded ones -- seem to have a slightly more varied diet than
:: that.
:::
::: I did atkins for a year, lost 42lbs, reached target, but mainly
::: because the diet controlled my appetite well, and the strict rules
::: mean you cant even entertain the idea of eating junk food. The
::: effect on my blood sugar and mood has been great and my colesterol
::: went down to 4.4, its great to see that eggs have become a good
::: food again with little effect on colesterol, the amount I have
::: eaten, its a big relief.
::
:: That's great! Good for you!
::
::: A load of these "Jello cheese cake with macadamia nut base recipe"
::: posts make me lol, or pork rinds with splenda make a great snack,
::: urghh they just aint getting the point.
::
:: Really. What then, would be "the point?"
::
:: A lot of people just need to restrict calories, and LC does that for
:: them nicely. But others are insulin resistant, even diabetic, and
:: don't process carbohydrates the same way as non-LC people. For them
:: it's not about calories, but about carbohydrates. Those of us who are
:: IR find we can lose and maintain on a higher calorie intake than
:: eating any other way, and it's a lifelong change, not a short-term
:: diet. A lifelong change that may occasionally involve eating
:: sugar-free cheesecake

Oh yes....

(I'll refrain from commenting on
:: Splenda-sweetened pork rinds, a concept I personally find
:: horrifying.)

Hmm....I have not encountered these yet....but I do like those that are
covered with cinnammon.

::
:: Low-carb is *not* a calorie restrictive diet -- even if it can be
:: used as one. It's a carbohydrate restrictive diet, and that's why it
:: works so well for many people who've never had success on calorie
:: restrictive plans.
::
::: I still eat LC during the week as I feel good, just eat what the
::: hell I want on Satudays, still lose a couple of pounds a month.
::
:: Well, again -- that's great! Good for you! Just keep in mind that
:: your experience isn't universal, and low-carb -- like most things in
:: life -- can be completely different for others.
::
:: Dawn

Doug Lerner wrote:

I am curious, though. Is there anybody in the world who has ever gone from
very obese (say verging on or past 300 lb) to completely normal goal weight
by JUST reducing carbs and not minding calories at all?

A few. There are plenty who've gone from very obese to not all that
overweight just by reducing carbs.

But the less you have to lose, the less the metabolic advantage. It's
easy to find folks with 100+ to lose dropping 2+ per week, but try to
find someone with 20 to lose dropping like that and you may as well
switch to easy stuff like world peace.

Once you have less to lose, any amount of overeating will stop loss.

To drop to a realistic ideal weight, all have to avoid over eating,
some have to carefully track calories to stay in range, and plenty
have to reduce calories to low levels. So what? That's still better
than most other plans because it was a lot easier to get to that
situation than on any other plan, and the appetite suppression of
ketosis still makes cutting calories easier.

Are plans, like Atkins, being deceptive when they talk about ketosis?

No. The book is quite honest that over eating is forbidden at all
times. It's folks with preconceived notions that carbs are the
enemy reading their own ideas into the process that create ideas
like the above. And idiots who never read the book in the first
place. Atkins doesn't say you can lose down to idea weight while
over eating. He says you should never need to go hungry, very
different unless you force a preconceived notion onto it.

And really, most folks can get very clsoe to their ideal weight
without ever going hungry. Is it really worth months of struggle
at 500 calories less than normal to lose those last 10? It is to
some; it isn't to others. Folks with 50+ to lose just look at
the ones with only 10 to go, see they needed need to be hungry
to get there, and want that. Folks with only 10 to lose want
better, and such is life. "The man who is happy is a wise man,
emulate him. The man who is satisfied is a fool, avoid him."

"katp"

writes:

I'm more of the mind that I eat less
calories by accident because I'm just feeling great on the lowcarb. I think
quantity has a part to play......it may not be the be all and end all...but
surely it's part of it.

ITA. I started a food diary as soon as I quit denying that I needed to lose
weight. A week later, I dropped sugar from my diet, and 16 days after that, I
went low-carb. If I look back, I can see that I ate at least 50% more than I'm
eating now, sometimes 100% more. Yet I'm not going hungry or feeling deprived
on this WOE. So I feel that low-carb eating has definitely worked for me, in
that I'm both craving and eating less food in general and junk in particular.

Getting back to the OP's point, though it was aimed at people with a lot of
weight to lose, I've become *aware* of calories. I'm not counting them yet,
because I don't have to at this point. But if I stall out for a long time?
Yeah, I'll be cutting back.

Daria
166/147/140
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04

You have to watch caloric intake as well but by minimizing carbs you're
depriving your body of it's prefered source to make glucose for cell and
brain energy. Without glucose from carbs, the body uses fat however the
process to get fat to glucose is very inefficient so more calories of fat
are used for glucose production leaving fewer to add to your body. If your
caloric intake is low enough, the body begins using stored fat for glucose
production and thereby begins weight loss. However high carb intake will not
only meet the body's glucose demands but the excess carbs will be turned
into fat. So you can see why more than the minimun necessary amount of carbs
are doubly dangerous for weight loss.



"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Most of us, me included, eventually seem to arrive at the conclusion that
we
need to watch calories in order to lose weight very long term (beyond the
quick loss you get from just watching carbs the first 6 months or so).

I use low-carb to help reduce hunger and to keep my blood sugar under
control. It has benefits beyond weight loss.

I am curious, though. Is there anybody in the world who has ever gone from
very obese (say verging on or past 300 lb) to completely normal goal
weight
by JUST reducing carbs and not minding calories at all?

Are plans, like Atkins, being deceptive when they talk about ketosis?

doug

"katp" wrote in message ...

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news

I'm not sure whether it's protein, fat or lack of insulin spike that
causes reduced desire to eat. I personally think it's the latter. I've
had high protein meals (i.e., a whey protein shake) and high fat meals
and
still been hungry afterwards. In fact, I'll eat two eggs, a slice of
cheese, and some type of meat before I drive to work and be hungry when
I
get to work (an hour later). I think it's a stable blood sugar level
that
provides the overall reduced desire to eat. When I'm eating low carb, I
never have a blood sugar/insulin spike.

That certainly makes sense to me. I do believe the low carbs are
controlling
my desire to eat sugary and floury things. I don't believe it's just the
protein that's stopping those cravings.

Which seems to contradict what you just said to Peter ....

Begin Quote
I was merely suggesting that I think that the documentary's analysis of
Atkins seems to point to the high protein factor. That protein suppresses
appetite makes more sense to me.
End Quote

So is it protein or lack of an insulin spike ...

On 3/26/04 2:53 AM, in article x0F8c.95041$po.729271@attbi_s52, "Bill M"
wrote:

Doug Lerner wrote:

Most of us, me included, eventually seem to arrive at the conclusion that
we need to watch calories in order to lose weight very long term (beyond
the quick loss you get from just watching carbs the first 6 months or so).

I use low-carb to help reduce hunger and to keep my blood sugar under
control. It has benefits beyond weight loss.

I am curious, though. Is there anybody in the world who has ever gone from
very obese (say verging on or past 300 lb) to completely normal goal
weight by JUST reducing carbs and not minding calories at all?

Are plans, like Atkins, being deceptive when they talk about ketosis?

doug
I started out at 300lbs (wasnt very obese just a very large man hehehe) and
am now at 250 which is a very comfortable weight for me all done by low
carbing only. Ate all i wanted but kept carbs low. Was actually very easy..

Is 250 your goal weight? Do you want to lose more - and have you continued
to lose more by just low-carbing?

doug

On 3/26/04 3:01 AM, in article ,
"Dawn Taylor" wrote:

Low-carb is *not* a calorie restrictive diet -- even if it can be used
as one. It's a carbohydrate restrictive diet, and that's why it works
so well for many people who've never had success on calorie
restrictive plans.

But that is the question of the day - can a very obese person (like me) get
all the way to goal *just* by low-carbing?

In other words, is there anything at all to a ketogenic diet, like Atkins
proposes, beyond reduced hunger resulting in reduced appetite and lower
calorie intake?

I found it was very easy for the first 6 months to lose about 40 lb, going
from 288 to 248. Then I completely stalled for another 5 months, after
which my weight started creeping up again.

When I finally added calorie restrictions to the diet as well a little over
three weeks go I finally began losing again, and I am just about back to
250.

So it makes me wonder about *just* low-carbing being even possible.

I think maybe for *some* people (perhaps Atkins himself) it was enough to
reduce hunger just enough to bring a person down to a normal weight.

But for some very obese people like me, who eat too much (!) just watching
carbs has turned out not to be enough.

The crux of the matter seems to be what really happens during ketosis, which
Atkins says is critical for weight loss. How much does it actually block the
storage of body fat from dietary intake versus simple low carb eating.

I do admit that I ended up going out of ketosis relatively early. Even
keeping my carb levels down to induction level, the doctor was "pleased"
that there were no more ketone bodies in my urine after just three months on
Atkins.

If I had reduced my carb intake even more - to like 10 carbs per day - and
somehow gotten myself back into ketosis would my weight loss have continued
and no 5 month plateau reached?

doug

On 3/26/04 4:04 AM, in article
, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote:

Are plans, like Atkins, being deceptive when they talk about ketosis?

No. The book is quite honest that over eating is forbidden at all
times.

Yes, that is true. But in that case, what is all this about ketosis
effectively blocking the storage of dietary fat?

Maybe that theoretically only happens with zero carbs?

With a zero carb diet could you eat unlimited calories and still lose
weight?

doug

"John" wrote in message et...
You have to watch caloric intake as well but by minimizing carbs you're
depriving your body of it's prefered source to make glucose for cell and
brain energy. Without glucose from carbs, the body uses fat however the
process to get fat to glucose is very inefficient so more calories of fat
are used for glucose production leaving fewer to add to your body. If your
caloric intake is low enough, the body begins using stored fat for glucose
production

No. Cells begin to adjust to the lack of glucose and switch over to
burning ketones. Fat is not turned into glucose. Oh, and sugar
alcohols are also turned into ketones, not glucose.

and thereby begins weight loss. However high carb intake will not
only meet the body's glucose demands but the excess carbs will be turned
into fat. So you can see why more than the minimun necessary amount of carbs
are doubly dangerous for weight loss.

There are no "minimun [sic] necessary amount of carbs."

--Bryan

I am curious, though. Is there anybody in the world who has ever gone from
very obese (say verging on or past 300 lb) to completely normal goal weight
by JUST reducing carbs and not minding calories at all?

I don't know if he'll be able to keep it up, but my husband has gone from 310
to 235 and has yet to count a single calorie. He still eats what is (IMHO) a
huge amount of food. Then again, he's not finishing it off a half pound of
peanut butter cups after dinner anymore, which is a big dietary change for him,
LOL!


LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/219/140
& hubby- 6' 310/235/180