Low carb same as low cal?

"Her Subj." wrote in message
oups.com...
Are my replies showing up? Why can't I see them on the threaded view?
HS


I'm noticing when I post via google I can't see my own posts afterward.
Your posts are showing though.

Jenn

"Daven Thrice" wrote in message
news:PvJvd.33529$ve.31172@fed1read06...
Looking at a low-carb diet, what I see is that by counting carbs you're
really counting calories. (As long as you're not eating pork fat by the
pound.) Basically, it seems that if you go with reasonably low-fat meats
on a low-carb diet, you're automatically on a low-cal diet too.

This is the whole point. Since most excess calories come from a combination
of carbs and fat, if you cut one out completely then you'll probably slice
your calories in half. That's why low-carb and low-fat are basically the
same diet.

"Her Subj." wrote in message
oups.com...
Are my replies showing up? Why can't I see them on the threaded view?
HS

I'm seeing your posts too. Maybe your news server isn't picking them up, or
maybe you need to do some maintenance on your system such as compacting
folders and so forth.

Leafing through alt.support.diet, I read Daven Thrice's message of 14
Dec 2004:


"Her Subj." wrote in message
oups.com...
Are my replies showing up? Why can't I see them on the threaded view?
HS

I'm seeing your posts too. Maybe your news server isn't picking them
up, or maybe you need to do some maintenance on your system such as
compacting folders and so forth.

You're using Outlook Express, she's using google
http://groups-beta.google.com. Her posts are not coming through on google.

Phil M.

"Phil M." wrote in message
...
Leafing through alt.support.diet, I read Daven Thrice's message of 14
Dec 2004:


"Her Subj." wrote in message
oups.com...
Are my replies showing up? Why can't I see them on the threaded view?
HS

I'm seeing your posts too. Maybe your news server isn't picking them
up, or maybe you need to do some maintenance on your system such as
compacting folders and so forth.

You're using Outlook Express, she's using google
http://groups-beta.google.com. Her posts are not coming through on google.


Googles servers take several hours to update. Her posts will all be there
tomorrow.

Daven Thrice wrote:
"Phil M." wrote in message
...
Leafing through alt.support.diet, I read Daven Thrice's message of
14
Dec 2004:


"Her Subj." wrote in message
oups.com...
Are my replies showing up? Why can't I see them on the threaded
view?
HS

I'm seeing your posts too. Maybe your news server isn't picking
them
up, or maybe you need to do some maintenance on your system such
as
compacting folders and so forth.

You're using Outlook Express, she's using google
http://groups-beta.google.com. Her posts are not coming through on
google.


Googles servers take several hours to update. Her posts will all be
there
tomorrow.

Not really. I use google regularly depending on which computer I'm on
and it varies. Most days it's very current, others the ball gets
dropped and it takes a day or two for it to catch up. Meanwhile back
to the original problem - lately when I *post* from google, I will see
*replies* to my post in google long before I ever see my own post in
the thread which appears to be the same problem HS is having.

Upon further review, I see that I can't see her posts at all this
morning so google must have some issues showing it's own posts. If
that's the case, then she won't see this post either letting her know
that she's not the only one with the problem!

Jenn

"Daven Thrice" wrote in message
news:PvJvd.33529$ve.31172@fed1read06...
Like I said, I'm not doing great, but I'm not doing too bad either. The
low-cal dieting did work pretty well, but I just can 't hang with it as a
WOL. I'm open to any discussion here on healthy low-carbing, in terms of
calories, food selections, or whatever.

I think the most important thing, no matter how or where you decide to cut
your calories, is that it *does* have to be something that you can basically
hang with (only in a slightly less strict form during maintenance) as a WOL.
If you think you can do this by cutting carbs and not overcompensating in
other macronutrients, a lot of people have good success that way.

Some people going low-carb report that their carb cravings do genuinely go
away and they can happily spend the rest of their days not longing for
french fries or cinnamon rolls. However, the very fact that there are so
many low-carb "fake foods" flooding the market indicates, to me, that a lot
of people don't loose the carb drive and probably go back to their old bad
habits once they've lost the weight. This is precisely the problem my BF is
having, having lost about 40 lbs in 6 months on Atkins. He found the diet
relatively easy to stick to for the time he was on it. He did not feel
hungry, but he did feel deprived of the foods he loved (esp. having to give
up good beer) and pretty much went back to his old ways once he was down
around his goal weight. He has probably regained about 15 lbs of the weight
he lost (although probably 5 lbs or so of that was water weight
lost/regained).

Ig wrote:

I do wonder about something. Apparently low carbing does an
adequate job at at least ensuring that the person does not overeat
to the point of regeining weight.

That's what you're using it for, check. Low carb means no insulin
swings so no carb cravings from low blood sugar. Eating fat to
fill in to a reasonable total calorie level also increases the full
feeling and further cuts appetite.

What I am curious about is, if a person was force fed, or ate
more than he wanted, would he or she gain or not, on LC. The
answer is not clear to me. I asked it in alt.support.diet.low-carb
once, and people's opinions differ.

This is why overeating is forbidden on Atkins.

Low carbing tends to increase the resting metabolism slightly
if you are in ketosis. Low fatting tends to decrease the resting
metabolism slightly. So *for the same total calories* low
carbing works a few percent faster than low fatting until the
dieter starts to close in on a good weight. Then that edge
dissappears.

This means that some folks who were eating very close to
the correct total calories before starting can change what
they eat, stay at the same total calories, and lose until they
start to approach their ideal wait. Actually that happens with
either low carb or low fat it's just that many are hungry while
low fatting and many aren't hungry while low carbing (not
everyone in either case, no magic bullet).

There's a big difference between eating at a level that was
already about right, and overeating. Low carbing is proof
against gaining while eating a lot compared to a low calorie
diet, but i isn't proof against gaining if you actually overeat.
For folks with a history of low calorie dieting, it can seem like
a lot of food.

Daven Thrice:

Looking at a low-carb diet, what I see is that by counting carbs
you're
really counting calories.

You didn't look very closely or you looked with a bias and ignored the
parts tha tdisagree with your bias. There's huge difference between
forbidding overeating and counting calories.

(As long as you're not eating pork fat by the pound.)

Which is of course forbidden on every plan there is.

Basically, it seems that if you go with reasonably low-fat meats on
a low-carb diet, you're automatically on a low-cal diet too.

While that's true, subtracting fat from a low-carb plan does NOT
automatically increase your loss rate. Human bodies are not
simple gasoline engines lie that. Increased fat intake within the
usual calorie guidelines discussed in ASD will increase the
metabolism. The effect goes away if you go well over the calorie
guidelines, and that's why overeatin is forbidden. Decreasec
fat intake withint he usual calorie guidelines will decrease
metabolism. Strange, but follow folks on ASDLC for a while and
you will see that this anti-obvious trend is quite real. The ones
who stall are the ones who overeat, or the ones who cut carbs
too much, or the ones who try to low fat plus low carb.

Wow, those are three pretty big meals, even for a big guy like
me, for a total of 1700 calories at induction level carbs. Actually,
at 2200 cal/20 carbs a day, there's quite a bit of room for an
evening snack.

Right. Plenty of food but overeating is fobidden.

If you called around 2200 calories per day "counting calories"
then you mean something different than my useage.
I've trended in the 1800-2000 calorie range for a while

Overeating is kind of a vague concept.

It sure is. That's why I keep referring back to the various guidelines
for
total calories that are discussed here. Even though the different
guidelines that are suggested don't agree, they do give a range that
is not overeating.

Say, I do not count anything and eat to my heart's content

The magic questions - Does that include foods you have addictive
reactions to that you're incapable of being moderate with? Does
that include foods that will trigger a blood sugar swing? Does
your heart's content mean stuffing until the stomach presses
on the heart?

Where does healthy eating stop and overeating start?I cannot
say for sure.

It's a hard topic to be objective on.

All I know is that I am not gaining while eating as described.

I think this is one of the simplist definitions of "not overeating"
that's available.