Counting Carbs and Calories?

On 5/22/04 2:13 AM, in article
, "Luna"
wrote:

I don't get this. If you want to lose weight, you have to eat fewer
calories. How do you know if you're eating fewer calories if you don't
count them? Do you just guess? Most people end up guessing way too low
when they do that.

You do get this, Luna. You are exactly right. There is no way of knowing
unless you count them. And you are right - people are notorious for
underestimating how much they have actually eaten unless they count and
measure. I have been guilty of that lots of times in the past.

doug

On 5/22/04 2:34 AM, in article
, "billydee"
wrote:

The only way you lose weight
is to eat less than you burn despite what diet you are on.

Exactly. Regardless of all the smoke and mirrors and conjectures,
conservation of energy still applies.

doug

Lastly, who in their right mind would want to be a slave to a calorie
counting regimen in the first place?

On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:31:44 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

Disagree.

Counting calories is generally more accurate than counting carbs. This is
not really the most important point to be made here, but it is generally
accepted that carb counts typically have widely different values (like
varying by 25% or more) because of the way they are measured. Basically
carbs are measured by subtracting everything else that can be measured
directly, like fat and protein. Plus there are all these controversies about
which carbs "really count" and which ones don't, such as sugar alcohols,
glycerin, etc.

Calories are measured to great accuracy.

Incorrect unless you own a lab and a bomb calorimeter.

As far as whether or not calorie counting provides a useful yardstick for
predicting weight loss or gain - calories provide the ONLY accurate
yardstick for such predicting.

Incorrect.

Whether you can stick to low-calories is a separate matter from whether it
is biophysically correct or not. If you can control your hunger by adding in
low-carbs you can stick with it.

Accepting hunger as a situation that does not need satiation is more
important than satiating it.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On 5/22/04 2:19 PM, in article ,
"Mosaic M_uns" wrote:

Calories are measured to great accuracy.

Incorrect unless you own a lab and a bomb calorimeter.

Or can read.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/


As far as whether or not calorie counting provides a useful yardstick for
predicting weight loss or gain - calories provide the ONLY accurate
yardstick for such predicting.

Incorrect.

Do you also think conservation of energy is incorrect? If so, we are talking
in two completely different realms of reality.


Whether you can stick to low-calories is a separate matter from whether it
is biophysically correct or not. If you can control your hunger by adding in
low-carbs you can stick with it.

Accepting hunger as a situation that does not need satiation is more
important than satiating it.

Please re-read my paragraph above. I said you could use low-carbs as a way
of controlling hunger. That way you can also stick to a diet that will help
you lose weight - reducing calories.

doug

What you are neglecting to mention is that you are comparing a diet
which PROMOTES fat storage and hunger (i.e. the insulin spiking carb
heavy low fat diet) with a diet that promotes fat burning & physical
cannibalization (i.e. the insulin normalizing, glucagon elevating low
carb diet)

On an insulin spiking diet you want to eat and eat and eat because
insulin screams at you to put fuel in the tank. The natural instincts
on this sort of diet is to GAIN weight, which is why weight gain is
what happens when careful calorie counting ceases.

On a low carb diet you want to eat very little because our bodies are
really good at opening up the pantry (aka our big fat *sses) and
pulling out a snack instead . Our natural instincts on a low carb
diet is to MAINTAING weight - or if very obese due to years of an
unnatural insulin spiking diet - lose weight.

This difference between a natural desire to GAIN and a natural desire
to MAINTAIN OR LOSE is very important. Counting calories is a good
tool to employ for quicker weight loss, however if your dietary
composition does not favor weight maintenence, you will regain weight.
This is why counting calories has a traditionally high failure rate.
However, counting calories + low carb is very, very effective. You get
the best of both worlds - faster losses & natural weight maintenence.

I've lost over 140 pounds using this method. I count calories to lose,
but my body naturally wants to maintain whatever weight I am. I cannot
physically eat beyond that point, I feel sick and do not desire food.
That's the LC magic.

Yes when you are very overweight you might not need to count calories
at all; when I was very heavy I found my appetite even smaller than it
is now (because I had a huge surplus of fat my body had unnaturally
stored due to my insulin-spiking carb-heavy diet before, and it wanted
to burn off all the fat preferentially to eating food from
environment). However, modest overweight is much harder to deal with &
eliminate w/o counting calories. But, like I said, unless you take
your weight to an unnaturally low point for you, the body naturally
wants to maintain its weight when eating a low carb diet so calorie
counting to lose + low carb to maintain is ideal.

(tcomeau) wrote in message . com...
"Jim Bard" wrote in message ...
"tcomeau" wrote in message
om...

Counting calories is neither needed nor is it even remotely useful as
a yardstick to predict weight gain or loss.

TC

Right.

And counting the gallons of gas I put in my tank is neither needed nor is it
even remotely useful for figuring out my gas mileage.

More than 95% of those who try to lose weight by restricting and
counting calories (ie. fat) fail to lose the weight and keep it off.
Hardly a dependable approach to weight loss.

TC