Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
GaryG wrote:
:: "Ignoramus7068" wrote in message
:: ...
::: I can relate my experience with "portion controlled dieting" vs.
::: "low carb dieting".
:::
::: Contrary to what that expert says, volume of food, quantity of water
::: etc, does not have a big effect on my satiety. (except for the first
::: few days, probably the same for others that show in short term
::: experiments) I could have my stomach completely full of water and
::: vegetables and still be hungry, meaning thinking about food and
::: wanting more.
:::
::: Second, saying that low carb diets are really low calorie diets
::: because, even though the dieter eats all he wants, he eats low cal,
::: completely misses the point.
:::
::: The point is that a person who would not regulate his calorie intake
::: on a high carb diet, can now regulate it on a high fat diet. The
::: calorie regulation system that was thought to be broken, can work by
::: itself, once I changed what I eat. If I overeat fat, I skip the next
::: meal or eat a lot less afterwards, because I am not hungry.
:::
::: For me, low carb is not a "metabolic loophole", using Dr Atkins
::: words. It is not "cheating the system". It is a way to eat to
::: function normally, in the sense that such that normal appetite can
::: control weight.
:::
::: My hope is that this low carbing is not harmful to my health and
::: that my body won't adapt to it, after a while, in ways that would
::: make me gain weight on LC.
:::
::: i
::: 223/173/180
::
:: I'm mostly agnostic with regards to the claims of LC diets. I
:: suspect they can be useful for some folks, especially those who
:: don't exercise very much (as an avid cyclist, I doubt Atkins would
:: keep me fueled). And I also know that when I've tried restricting
:: fats, I found myself with more cravings, and afternoon sleepiness.
:: So, clearly there's a "grain of truth" (pun intended) in the LC
:: approach. Currently, I try for a somewhat "higher-protein and good
:: fats, with lots of fruit and veggies" diet, and find self-regulation
:: to be pretty easy (most days...).
::
:: My only concern with the Atkins style approach is (as I understand
:: it), the de-emphasis on fruits and vegetables. Many recent studies
:: have consistently shown that folks who eat more fruits and
:: vegetables have less health problems (cancers, in particular). See
:: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fruits.html for instance.
::
:: So, are the Atkins folks getting enough fruits and veggies in their
:: diets? FWIW, some experts recommend 9 servings of fruit and
:: vegetables per day, while others recommend 5 or more. Are Atkins
:: folks getting near these recommended levels?

Gary - exactly who are "Aktins folks"? Perhaps you should read up on
Atkins
and other LC plans, because you don't really know much about them.


I don't claim to know much about it...that's why I was asking the question
in this ng!

I was just trying to get a sense of how many servings of fruit and
vegetables a typical Atkins/LC dieter eats per day.

FWIW, I know quite a few folks who've tried Atkins. Some have been hugely
successful...others moderately successful, and others not at all (par for
the course with most diets, I guess). I suspect that individual differences
in "satiety" explain some of the reasons why this is so (in my own case, I
find it easier to self-regulate when I include a bit more protein and
healthy fats than the low-fat approach).

GG

Barbara J. Rolls, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
(1992); Professor of Nutrition, Penn State University. Consultant for
Knoll Pharmaceuticals and has received research support from, among
others, Knoll, P&G, and ILSI. Coauthored (with James O. Hill) a 1998
report for ILSI on "Carbohydrates and Weight Management." (phone
conversation w/ R. Collins, CSPI, December 6, 2000) (Newark
Star-Ledger, 2/17/97)Research on lipid and lipoprotein responses to
different diets partially supported by Abbott Laboratories. (Am. J.
Clin. Nurt. 2000;70:839-46) Research on age related impairments in the
regulation of food intake supported in part by the Campbell Soup
Company. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995;62:923-31)

She is an industry shill pushing the same ol' BS about calories being
everything regardless of the quality of the food.

The quality of the food does count. And the amount of refined crap,
especially refined carbs, do count.

TC

(John WIlliams) wrote in message . com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/health/05brod.html

With Fruits and Vegetables, More Can Be Less
By JANE E. BRODY

Published: October 5, 2004

What determines how much we eat and how much we weigh? Is it the
amount of fat in foods, the presence of carbohydrates, the size of our
portions, what we drink with our meals, that elusive trait called
willpower? Conflicting popular advice can prompt would-be dieters to
give up before they even start.



The good news based on solid research is that you can eat more -
probably more food than you're now eating - and weigh less, if you
choose more of the right kinds of foods.

At a recent meeting on the worldwide obesity epidemic, important
insights into successful weight management were offered by Dr. Barbara
J. Rolls, a professor of behavioral health at Penn State. She began
her presentation on weight control with this irrefutable statement:

"Calories count, no matter what you read in the press. The laws of
thermodynamics have not been reversed."

With respect to weight gain and loss, the laws of thermodynamics can
be translated as: Calories consumed must be used or they will be
stored as body fat. The body does not waste energy, no matter what its
source. When people are placed on carefully controlled
calorie-restricted diets, the amount of fat in the diet - whether 25
percent or 45 percent of calories - has little effect on weight loss,
Dr. Rolls reported.

People who claim that they can eat as much as they want (of protein
and fat, for example) and lose weight as long as they avoid certain
kinds of foods (carbohydrates, for example) are really eating less
(that is, fewer calories) than they did before.

But what about a majority of people concerned about weight control who
are not interested in cutting out breads, cereals, grapes, bananas,
watermelon, carrots, beets, potatoes, rice and pasta (not to mention
wine, beer, cakes, cookies, ice cream and other carbohydrate-rich
foods banned on Atkins-style diets)? Are they doomed to remaining
hopelessly overweight?

Not according to Dr. Rolls, an expert on satiety and satiation, words
that refer to what and how much a person has to eat at a meal to feel
satisfied and stop eating. Many characteristics of foods affect
satiety: how they look, taste and feel in the mouth; how much chewing
they require; the nutrients they contain; how densely packed the
calories are, and, independent of caloric density, the volume of food
consumed.

She does not dispute the popular premise that the "macronutrients" in
foods - protein, fat, carbohydrates, alcohol and fiber - influence
caloric intake and use. For example, calorie for calorie, protein
appears to be the most satiating nutrient. Furthermore, during
overeating, the body burns more calories to metabolize protein and
carbohydrates than it does when processing fats, which are the
nutrients most efficiently stored as body fat.

Food Volume Counts

So what makes your body say you've eaten enough? Dr. Rolls's studies
on satiety have clearly demonstrated an overriding influence of food
volume, prompting her to write an excellent book, "The Volumetrics
Weight-Control Plan: Feel Full on Fewer Calories" (HarperCollins,
2000) with Robert A. Barnett.

She found that the amount of calories in a given volume of food makes
a big difference in how many calories people consume at a given meal,
and throughout the day.

In nutritional parlance, this is called the energy density of the
food.

The greater the energy density - the more calories packed into a given
weight or volume of food - the easier it is to overeat.

"People tend to eat a consistent weight of food," Dr. Rolls has found.
When consuming a calorie-dense food high in fat, people are likely to
eat more calories just to get in a satisfying amount of food.

What increases food volume without adding calories? You guessed it.
Water. And what foods naturally contain the most water? You got that
right too. Fruits and vegetables.

"People given the message to eat more fruits and vegetables lost
significantly more weight than those told to eat less fat," Dr. Rolls
said. "Advice to eat more is a lot more effective than advice to eat
less. Positive messages about what can be eaten are more effective
than restrictive messages about what not to eat."

Newsflash: low-carb dieters like low-carb diets. You can drop
alt.support.diet from this thread any time now.

Dally

GaryG wrote:
|| "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
|| ...
||| GaryG wrote:
||||| "Ignoramus7068" wrote in
||||| message ...
|||||| I can relate my experience with "portion controlled dieting" vs.
|||||| "low carb dieting".
||||||
|||||| Contrary to what that expert says, volume of food, quantity of
|||||| water etc, does not have a big effect on my satiety. (except for
|||||| the first few days, probably the same for others that show in
|||||| short term experiments) I could have my stomach completely full
|||||| of water and vegetables and still be hungry, meaning thinking
|||||| about food and wanting more.
||||||
|||||| Second, saying that low carb diets are really low calorie diets
|||||| because, even though the dieter eats all he wants, he eats low
|||||| cal, completely misses the point.
||||||
|||||| The point is that a person who would not regulate his calorie
|||||| intake on a high carb diet, can now regulate it on a high fat
|||||| diet. The calorie regulation system that was thought to be
|||||| broken, can work by itself, once I changed what I eat. If I
|||||| overeat fat, I skip the next meal or eat a lot less afterwards,
|||||| because I am not hungry.
||||||
|||||| For me, low carb is not a "metabolic loophole", using Dr Atkins
|||||| words. It is not "cheating the system". It is a way to eat to
|||||| function normally, in the sense that such that normal appetite
|||||| can control weight.
||||||
|||||| My hope is that this low carbing is not harmful to my health and
|||||| that my body won't adapt to it, after a while, in ways that would
|||||| make me gain weight on LC.
||||||
|||||| i
|||||| 223/173/180
|||||
||||| I'm mostly agnostic with regards to the claims of LC diets. I
||||| suspect they can be useful for some folks, especially those who
||||| don't exercise very much (as an avid cyclist, I doubt Atkins would
||||| keep me fueled). And I also know that when I've tried restricting
||||| fats, I found myself with more cravings, and afternoon sleepiness.
||||| So, clearly there's a "grain of truth" (pun intended) in the LC
||||| approach. Currently, I try for a somewhat "higher-protein and
||||| good fats, with lots of fruit and veggies" diet, and find
||||| self-regulation to be pretty easy (most days...).
|||||
||||| My only concern with the Atkins style approach is (as I understand
||||| it), the de-emphasis on fruits and vegetables. Many recent
||||| studies have consistently shown that folks who eat more fruits and
||||| vegetables have less health problems (cancers, in particular).
||||| See http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fruits.html for
||||| instance.
|||||
||||| So, are the Atkins folks getting enough fruits and veggies in
||||| their diets? FWIW, some experts recommend 9 servings of fruit and
||||| vegetables per day, while others recommend 5 or more. Are Atkins
||||| folks getting near these recommended levels?
|||
||| Gary - exactly who are "Aktins folks"? Perhaps you should read up
||| on Atkins and other LC plans, because you don't really know much
||| about them.
|||
||
|| I don't claim to know much about it...that's why I was asking the
|| question in this ng!

There is not single answer to that question since many people "claim" to be
doing Aktins and haven't read the book or the website. Also, there are those
who don't even like veggies. Finally, those here are likely a small
percentage of those who are doing Atkins.

||
|| I was just trying to get a sense of how many servings of fruit and
|| vegetables a typical Atkins/LC dieter eats per day.

Well, there are many here who will tell you that they eat more veggies now
than ever before. Atkins done properly is about eating a LOT of veggies as
well as the lower carb fruits (some fruits just aren't suitable for weight
loss because the sugar content will cause BG swings that then trigger
appetitie).

I personally eat a lot of veggies. My diet is far from simply meat, eggs,
cheese, etc. I also eat a good amount of fish. I really should eat less
nuts, though, since I have a problem with them.

||
|| FWIW, I know quite a few folks who've tried Atkins. Some have been
|| hugely successful...others moderately successful, and others not at
|| all (par for the course with most diets, I guess).

Exactly.

I suspect that
|| individual differences in "satiety" explain some of the reasons why
|| this is so (in my own case, I find it easier to self-regulate when I
|| include a bit more protein and healthy fats than the low-fat
|| approach).

Among people who have BG issues and don't know it, Atkins or any LC plan
will work well. They just have to keep at it long enough to learn to stick
to it.

(John WIlliams) wrote in message . com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/health/05brod.html


She found that the amount of calories in a given volume of food makes
a big difference in how many calories people consume at a given meal,
and throughout the day.


The author of this report is a quack. The appetite suppression caused
by puffed up low calorie density food is nothing like the
effectiveness of the appetite suppression of a low-carb diet. Give me
a few huge bowls of dry popocorn and a few minutes later I will be
just as hungry. Give the same calories in eggs and bacon and if I
avoid the carbs I'll be satisfied.

Any why does it seem that every second-rate pseudo-scientist that the
popular media can come up with say that equal calories result in equal
weight gain or loss according to thermodynamics. The process is much
more complicated than that. Calories are not absorbed with perfect
efficiency and there are places that energy goes other than body fat.
One experiment showed that low-carb dieters lost fat (not total
weight) faster than fasters.

"GaryG" wrote in message ...
So, are the Atkins folks getting enough fruits and veggies in their diets?
FWIW, some experts recommend 9 servings of fruit and vegetables per day,
while others recommend 5 or more. Are Atkins folks getting near these
recommended levels?

GG

Speaking for myself...I started on Atkins initially and slowly
redifined my diet to one which I'm most happy with and my family can
live with.

While on Atkins..(not counting the two week induction period)...pretty
much replaced all grain meals with a veggie..I did NOT replace them
with more meat. So I ate much much more veggies than I did before.
Instead of a salad-potato-meat type dinner. It became a very large
salad-brocolli and then smaller meat dish as a side...yes smaller meat
type dish. I've actually turned to eating less meat since going low
carb. I find I have the most energy and function best on lots of
veggies.

I'm still relatively lower carb than most folks. I eat limited
portions of whole grain foods. I eat lots of fruit, mostly berries.

Kristine

Ignoramus7068 wrote:

Second, saying that low carb diets are really low calorie diets
because, even though the dieter eats all he wants, he eats low cal,
completely misses the point.

The point is that a person who would not regulate his calorie intake
on a high carb diet, can now regulate it on a high fat diet. The
calorie regulation system that was thought to be broken, can work by
itself, once I changed what I eat. If I overeat fat, I skip the next
meal or eat a lot less afterwards, because I am not hungry.

For me, low carb is not a "metabolic loophole", using Dr Atkins
words. It is not "cheating the system". It is a way to eat to function
normally, in the sense that such that normal appetite can control
weight.

Jane Brody recently spoke in my neck of the woods. When the
local rag interviewed her, she totally ripped into Atkins.
Her comment was something along the lines of "Atkins is
ridiculous. How can you say you're never going to eat
another potato as long as you live."

Marsha/Ohio

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:44:59 -0400, Dally wrote:

Newsflash: low-carb dieters like low-carb diets. You can drop
alt.support.diet from this thread any time now.

Update: low-carb dieters are, nonetheless, dieters.

Xpost reinstated.

Her comment was something along the lines of "Atkins is
ridiculous. How can you say you're never going to eat
another potato as long as you live."

LOL! "I'm never going to eat a potato again as long as I live". How was that? I
also don't plan on doing heroin, or having sex with women. All things that are
pretty easy to swear off for me.

LCing since 12/01/03-
Me- 5'7" 265/162/140
& hubby- 6' 310/188/180
http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lcer09/my_photos

"John WIlliams" wrote in message
om...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/health/05brod.html

With Fruits and Vegetables, More Can Be Less
By JANE E. BRODY
effect on weight loss,
Dr. Rolls reported.

People who claim that they can eat as much as they want (of protein
and fat, for example) and lose weight as long as they avoid certain
kinds of foods (carbohydrates, for example) are really eating less
(that is, fewer calories) than they did before.

This woman is just plain stupid. She has no concept of what a low-carb diet
is, obvously, or how it is done. z(Which plan states that you can eat "as
much as they want of protein and fat and lose weight at slong as they avoid
carbohydrates?)

I'm embarrassed for her that she made such ignorant statements publicly.
How sad for her.

Peter