CARBS vs. CALORIES

I'm confused....Should I count carbs AND calories? Please don't burn
me for this dumb question, I'm new at this diet. Thanks!

(*AmBeR*) writes:
I'm confused....Should I count carbs AND calories? Please don't burn
me for this dumb question, I'm new at this diet. Thanks!

Which diet? What part of the diet are you on? Have you read the
book/website/whatever which describes the diet? Each diet has
different rules, so you'll have to be more specific.

However, in general it goes like this:

* At first, only count carbs. Keep them low, eat only enough to avoid
hunger.

* Soon, you'll find your hunger goes away, and you're eating less and
losing weight.

* When you stop losing weight (say, a month or two with no loss),
*then* count calories.

"*AmBeR*" wrote in message
om...
I'm confused....Should I count carbs AND calories? Please don't burn
me for this dumb question, I'm new at this diet. Thanks!

1 lb = 3500 calories.
Therefore, if you burned 3500 calories through exercise or diet or a
combination of the two, you would lose 1 lb.

Low carb usually supresses your appetite, and therefore you eat less
calories.
If you ate 500 calories a day less, over 7 days, you would be taking in 3500
calories less right?

you would lose 1 lb right?

Then low carb on top of that burns fat from ketosis, the process of breaking
down your bodys stored fat cells and using some of the byproducts of the
breakdown for fuel. This causes you to lose weight even faster.

So most people find that they lose weight in this order:

1. Water loss from the first part of induction
2. Fat burn from ketosis and some water loss
3. weight loss from taking in less calories than you would regularly if you
were carb hungry and taking in more food in general.

So you shoudl in my opinion count calories. dont be restrictive, but dont
eat way more than you need to eat. if you take in too many calories you will
stop losing after a while, and will get discouraged.

The way it has successfully worked for me is that when I do a strict Atkins
Induction I don't count calories at all, just carbs (20 or less.). When I start
eating more carbs (bread, low carb bagels, even higher carb items like pizza) I
count calories and keep them under 2500 a day, and still lose about a pound or
two a week. I lose the same amount of weight if I count carbs (say 40 a day) or
count calories, so much of the time I find it easier to count calories and just
keep an eye on carbs. I've been told I can get away with this being a man, and
that it doesn't work as well for women, but I don't know if that's true.

I lose the same amount of weight if I count carbs (say 40 a day) or
count calories, so much of the time I find it easier to count calories and
just
keep an eye on carbs. I've been told I can get away with this being a
man, and
that it doesn't work as well for women, but I don't know if that's true.\

generally this is the truth.
Men have larger muscles, and therefore larger tolerance for glycogen.
For example, a man can consume somewhere around 400g carbs to fill glycogen
completely, women are less.

Many men can get away with taking in somewhere around 50-90g carbs a day and
not find any adverse effects and not be kicked out of ketosis.
I would not recommend you do this if you are serious about sticking to your
diet, but it is true that men have a higher tolerance than women for this
sort of thing.

If low carb is right for you, you should find that you are naturally eating
fewer calories after a month of low carbs.

I think you should track both, but only worry about carbs during the first
month or two.

I never read the book. YMMV

"*AmBeR*" wrote in message
om...
I'm confused....Should I count carbs AND calories? Please don't burn
me for this dumb question, I'm new at this diet. Thanks!

Buy a book.


"*AmBeR*" wrote in message
om...
I'm confused....Should I count carbs AND calories? Please don't burn
me for this dumb question, I'm new at this diet. Thanks!

Actually, many of us have found that increasing our caloric intake
substantially (from 1800 to 3000 calories_ will increase our weight
loss and appetite suppression has nothing to do with it.

PJ





On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:41:17 GMT, "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)"
wrote:


"*AmBeR*" wrote in message
. com...
I'm confused....Should I count carbs AND calories? Please don't burn
me for this dumb question, I'm new at this diet. Thanks!

1 lb = 3500 calories.
Therefore, if you burned 3500 calories through exercise or diet or a
combination of the two, you would lose 1 lb.

Low carb usually supresses your appetite, and therefore you eat less
calories.
If you ate 500 calories a day less, over 7 days, you would be taking in 3500
calories less right?

you would lose 1 lb right?

Then low carb on top of that burns fat from ketosis, the process of breaking
down your bodys stored fat cells and using some of the byproducts of the
breakdown for fuel. This causes you to lose weight even faster.

So most people find that they lose weight in this order:

1. Water loss from the first part of induction
2. Fat burn from ketosis and some water loss
3. weight loss from taking in less calories than you would regularly if you
were carb hungry and taking in more food in general.

So you shoudl in my opinion count calories. dont be restrictive, but dont
eat way more than you need to eat. if you take in too many calories you will
stop losing after a while, and will get discouraged.

Then you should be ripped by now. Let's see the abs.

--
JC

Eat less, exercise more.

--
"PJx" wrote in message
...

Actually, many of us have found that increasing our caloric intake
substantially (from 1800 to 3000 calories_ will increase our weight
loss and appetite suppression has nothing to do with it.

PJ





On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:41:17 GMT, "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)"
wrote:


"*AmBeR*" wrote in message
. com...
I'm confused....Should I count carbs AND calories? Please don't burn
me for this dumb question, I'm new at this diet. Thanks!

1 lb = 3500 calories.
Therefore, if you burned 3500 calories through exercise or diet or a
combination of the two, you would lose 1 lb.

Low carb usually supresses your appetite, and therefore you eat less
calories.
If you ate 500 calories a day less, over 7 days, you would be taking in
3500
calories less right?

you would lose 1 lb right?

Then low carb on top of that burns fat from ketosis, the process of
breaking
down your bodys stored fat cells and using some of the byproducts of the
breakdown for fuel. This causes you to lose weight even faster.

So most people find that they lose weight in this order:

1. Water loss from the first part of induction
2. Fat burn from ketosis and some water loss
3. weight loss from taking in less calories than you would regularly if
you
were carb hungry and taking in more food in general.

So you shoudl in my opinion count calories. dont be restrictive, but dont
eat way more than you need to eat. if you take in too many calories you
will
stop losing after a while, and will get discouraged.

"PJx" wrote in message
...
|
| Actually, many of us have found that increasing our caloric intake
| substantially (from 1800 to 3000 calories_ will increase our weight
| loss and appetite suppression has nothing to do with it.
|
| PJ
|

Good morning PJ.

This is definitely one of those YMMV things. I've consumed 1800 cals/day
from last September until about 2 weeks ago when I reduced to about 1600
cals/day. This has kept me steadily losing 1-2 pounds per week. The only
exception to that was during the week from Christmas to the end of the year
where, though I stayed low carb throughout--except for 3 pieces of sushi on
New Years Eve which was my big treat for the new year--I relaxed on the
calories to the point I was eating between 3000 to 3500 calories per day.
I've reached the point where I can eat a whopping 45g of carbs/day and still
lose, and I kept those carb levels, even over the holidays. With the extra
calories, however, I actually went back up about 4 pounds. Nothing
disastrous about that, when I went back to 1800 calories/day (and my normal
routine) right after the first of the year I lost those 4 pounds in two days
or so, which made me believe that it was primarily water gain. Too much
salt in the Christmas ham?

I'm now within about 15 pounds of my final goal and will start adjusting up
both carbs and calories to intentionally slow down and then stabilize my
weight loss for these last pounds. I'd hate to find out that when I start
eating more I start losing faster.

I am not disagreeing with you, and certainly not intending to be
argumentative. I'm just pointing out that this could be an individual
thing. At least it would be in my case.

Have a very pleasant weekend.

JJ.