Another "how does LC work" question

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:14:48 -0000, "SLR"
announced in front of God and
everybody:

Can we compare the weight loss/gain/whatever's of two *identical* (and,
therefore,
hypothetical) individuals who each, over an extended period of time, burn
2000 calories
a day and consume 2000 calories a day, where they eat according to:

Person A: a conventional (carb-dominated) food pyramid
Person B. a low-carb diet such as Atkins

Would either experience weight loss? Gain? Would they be different?

Any thoughts?

It depends. If these people aren't insulin/metabolically resistant and
they are, indeed, identical, then they should lose the exact same
amount of weight. Or maintain, depending on how heavy they are to
begin with, how tall, how active, etc.

If, however, they are insulin resistant or diabetic, the one on the
low-carb plan will lose more weight than the one on the food pyramid
plan, because of the way IR people process carbs.

But no two people are identical. So the question is sort of silly.

Dawn

"SLR" wrote in message
...

Can we compare the weight loss/gain/whatever's of two *identical* (and,
therefore,
hypothetical) individuals who each, over an extended period of time, burn
2000 calories
a day and consume 2000 calories a day, where they eat according to:

Person A: a conventional (carb-dominated) food pyramid
Person B. a low-carb diet such as Atkins

Would either experience weight loss? Gain? Would they be different?

neither one would loose any weight. you have to burn more calories than you
take in to loose weight. period. you could eat 2000 calories of mayonnaise
or 2000 calories of broccoli, and either way, you STILL have to burn off
more than 2000 calories to loose any weight.

-kelly

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:34:53 -0800, "kc"
announced in front of God and
everybody:

neither one would loose any weight. you have to burn more calories than you
take in to loose weight. period. you could eat 2000 calories of mayonnaise
or 2000 calories of broccoli, and either way, you STILL have to burn off
more than 2000 calories to loose any weight.

DAMN IT. It was a trick question!

Dawn

"SLR" wrote:

Ignore, for a second, the following three supposed benefits of LC,
(I'm not denying these things; I just want to remove them to see if there's
anything left in LC):

i. overcoming carb "addictions".
ii. the "metabolic advantage" thing - i.e. the notion that it takes more
calories to burn a fat calorie than a carb calorie.
iii. the fact that one tends to be satisfied more quickly (i.e. after
consuming
fewer calories) eating fat/protein than eating carbs


So:

Can we compare the weight loss/gain/whatever's of two *identical* (and,
therefore,
hypothetical) individuals who each, over an extended period of time, burn
2000 calories
a day and consume 2000 calories a day, where they eat according to:

Person A: a conventional (carb-dominated) food pyramid
Person B. a low-carb diet such as Atkins

Would either experience weight loss? Gain? Would they be different?

Any thoughts?
Strange question--you seem to be looking to ignore the benefits fo the
diet.

In New Diet Revolution Atkins notes a study where a low-carb 1000
calaorie diet lost more than a 1000-calorie high carb one. However
part of that advantage would be item (ii). The same studies show that
people on a mainly fat diet could consume 2600 calories and lose
weight, while a balanced 2000 calorie diet lost nothing. This is a
contradiction of the standard "calories make you fat" mantra.

Atkins repeats in his book over and over, that a hig-fat, ultra-low
carb diet throughs the body fully into ketosis, rather than also
drawing energy from muscle mass. High fat diets lose weight greater
than others and the weight loss is not merely calories eaten minus
calories burned in exercise (as your example focuses on).

During ketosis, some of the converted fat is also expelled through
waste. Common sense says that in order to expel the unused ketones
(fat converted to available energy) it wasn't used by the body. So
your caloric deficit is calories eaten - calories burned - calories
wasted.

From everything I've read, I think that waste occurs more when you are
more overweight.
DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

"DigitalVinyl" wrote in message
...
"SLR" wrote:

Ignore, for a second, the following three supposed benefits of LC, ...

Strange question--you seem to be looking to ignore the benefits fo the
diet.

Well, that's exactly the point. I'm trying to find out if those *are* the
(only) benefits. If the answer to my question is that both people
would experience the same level of loss, and possibly that the loss
would be zero, then I understand. But then the ketosis thing
sounds a bit spurious.

Bear in mind I've just lost 13 lbs in my first week of induction, so
I'm not knocking Atkins. But my hunch is, I'd have lost the same
amount had I consumed the same calories of a "normal healthy" diet.
That said, had I done that I may have:

a. Not made such an impact on any carb addiction I have
b. Felt hungrier
c.Perhaps even had to eat slightly fewer calories, because there
was no metabolic advantage

Personally I reckon that all three were swamped by the fact thay
I probably consumed about 1000 calories or more per day less
than I burned/output. At my state of overwieght (248/235/165
and 5' 8"), I think almost any diet would work.

slr

Person A: a conventional (carb-dominated) food pyramid
Person B. a low-carb diet such as Atkins

Would either experience weight loss? Gain? Would they be different?


"kc" wrote in message
...
neither one would loose any weight. you have to burn more calories than
you
take in to loose weight. period. you could eat 2000 calories of
mayonnaise
or 2000 calories of broccoli, and either way, you STILL have to burn off
more than 2000 calories to loose any weight.

That's my view too. In other words, the benefits of Atkins is *only* those
first
three points. And the only reason they work is because they all contribute
to achieveing a calorie deficit. Calorie deficit is the be-all and end-all.

Now, here's a related question.

Suppose Person A achieves a 50 calorie deficit on low-fat, and Person
B does it on low-carb. Note that 50 calories is not a big number,
but whatever it is, assume it's small enough so that the body does
not dive headlong into famine mode and start eating internal organs
and muscles instead of fat.

Won't *both* persons burn fat? Isn't that what fat is for - compensating
for calorie deficits regardless of how they're achieved.

The point is, the main mechanism for losing fat is forcing the body to burn
it in a calorie deficit situation. Loss via ketones is a much smaller
factor,
isn't it? (Isn't it?)

slr

"SLR" wrote:


"DigitalVinyl" wrote in message
.. .
"SLR" wrote:

Ignore, for a second, the following three supposed benefits of LC, ...

Strange question--you seem to be looking to ignore the benefits fo the
diet.

Well, that's exactly the point. I'm trying to find out if those *are* the
(only) benefits. If the answer to my question is that both people
would experience the same level of loss, and possibly that the loss
would be zero, then I understand. But then the ketosis thing
sounds a bit spurious.

Bear in mind I've just lost 13 lbs in my first week of induction, so
I'm not knocking Atkins. But my hunch is, I'd have lost the same
amount had I consumed the same calories of a "normal healthy" diet.
That said, had I done that I may have:

a. Not made such an impact on any carb addiction I have
b. Felt hungrier
c.Perhaps even had to eat slightly fewer calories, because there
was no metabolic advantage

Personally I reckon that all three were swamped by the fact thay
I probably consumed about 1000 calories or more per day less
than I burned/output. At my state of overwieght (248/235/165
and 5' 8"), I think almost any diet would work.

Atkins quotes one of the skeptic scientists that may give you an
interesting way to look at weight loss. On a study, people lost 650gms
of fat weight per day(average). To dispute the claims of the ketogenic
diet results, the critic said that 650gms of fat, at 9 calories per
grams, would mean a person had a 5760 caloric deficit per day with a
1000 calorie daily intake. 6760 calories "burned", daily! Since no one
could maintain such a deficit the critic said the results were not
possible because standard caloric dieting theory said it was
impossible. (Basically the world can't be round cause I know its
square)

Unfortunately we don't have the ability at home to determine how much
of our weight loss is fat vs water vs lean tissue. So exact
calculations are lost to us. Studies did show much greater fat loss on
a ketongenic diet than typical diets or fasting.

Just for fun, if just 50% of the 13 lbs you lost was fat... that's
about 420gm per day average, * 9 (kcal/gm)= 3790 caloric deficit per
day. Which means you "burned" 3790 calories + whatever your average
calories consumed each day. Atkins says on a ketogenic diets the total
amount "burned" is much higher than daily exercise can account for,
proof of the metabolic advantages.


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

"SLR" wrote:



Person A: a conventional (carb-dominated) food pyramid
Person B. a low-carb diet such as Atkins

Would either experience weight loss? Gain? Would they be different?


"kc" wrote in message
...
neither one would loose any weight. you have to burn more calories than
you
take in to loose weight. period. you could eat 2000 calories of
mayonnaise
or 2000 calories of broccoli, and either way, you STILL have to burn off
more than 2000 calories to loose any weight.

That's my view too. In other words, the benefits of Atkins is *only* those
first
three points. And the only reason they work is because they all contribute
to achieveing a calorie deficit. Calorie deficit is the be-all and end-all.

Now, here's a related question.

Suppose Person A achieves a 50 calorie deficit on low-fat, and Person
B does it on low-carb. Note that 50 calories is not a big number,
but whatever it is, assume it's small enough so that the body does
not dive headlong into famine mode and start eating internal organs
and muscles instead of fat.

Won't *both* persons burn fat? Isn't that what fat is for - compensating
for calorie deficits regardless of how they're achieved.

You'd think so wouldn't you. But if that were true obesity would be
less a problem.

Look at it from another angle... why do you feel hunger? putting aside
psychological attachment of the act of eating, the simple answer...
because your body say it needs energy. Now I'm about 350, but I've
been overweight since 4-5 years old. At 18 I was 315, i'm 37 now. IF
simple caloric intake/outtake is applied i've been overconsuming since
I was a toddler. And even when over 300 lb (with over 3000 caloires a
day to maintain a 300lb person) i continue to overconsume. So why do I
feel hungry? SHouldn't the body automatically consume the vast reserve
of excess fat and not cause hunger multiple times a day? Is my body
storing fat for armageddon? Atkins recognizes that something is
broken there and causing excessive hunger when there is plenty of
energy stored in the body.

The idea that the 50 calories will only come from fat is a mistake.
One of the reasons that exercise is stressed with diets is it counters
the loss of lean tissue that occurs on a standard diet. Atkins
structured the diet around two major physiological factors...
disabling insulin-caused problems, and focusing the body on fat loss
(ketosis).

His book has a nice example from a nine week Cornell study with three
different diet groups.

1800 cals / 104 gms carbs / -2.73 lbs per week / -2.00 lbs fat ( 73%)
1800 cals / 60 gms carbs / -3.00 lbs per week / -2.50 lbs fat ( 83%)
1800 cals / 30 gms carbs / -3.73 lbs per week / -3.73 lbs fat (100%)

All the studies he quotes illustrate that simply counting calories
isn't the most efficient. It is the make up of those calories and how
they interact with your metabolism that determines the effectiveness
of dieting. I don't get the science of the trigger--and I don't know
if anybody does, but at some point the body shifts gears when carbs
are removed and starts burning fats more exclusively, which other
diets don't trigger. It also is more effective when there is greater
weight to lose. A person with more than 50 lbs to lose will drop TWICE
as much weight during induction as a person with less than 20 lbs to
lose.


The point is, the main mechanism for losing fat is forcing the body to burn
it in a calorie deficit situation. Loss via ketones is a much smaller
factor,
isn't it? (Isn't it?)

slr



DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

SLR wrote:

Ignore, for a second, the following three supposed benefits of LC,
(I'm not denying these things; I just want to remove them to see if there's
anything left in LC):

i. overcoming carb "addictions".
ii. the "metabolic advantage" thing - i.e. the notion that it takes more
calories to burn a fat calorie than a carb calorie.
iii. the fact that one tends to be satisfied more quickly (i.e. after
consuming
fewer calories) eating fat/protein than eating carbs

Fortunately you missed one:

iib) The other metabolic advantage. While in ketosis the balance of
glucagon vs insulin in the blood has fat moving out of storage. So
whether the withdrawn fat is burned or not it is potentially wasted.
Whether it is wasted depends on a wide variety of additional factors.
Since glucagon dominates and the direction of fat storage is out, it
takes a vast overdose of fat before new fat can be forced into storage.
And for the same total calories eaten more fat leads to more glucagon,
but be sure to note that the "for the same total calories" part also
means more fat means less carb and/or protein.

So:

Can we compare the weight loss/gain/whatever's of two *identical* (and,
therefore,
hypothetical) individuals who each, over an extended period of time, burn
2000 calories
a day and consume 2000 calories a day, where they eat according to:

Person A: a conventional (carb-dominated) food pyramid
Person B. a low-carb diet such as Atkins

Would either experience weight loss? Gain? Would they be different?

The 2000 calories is only enough fat to force new fat into storage if
all of it is fat, and neither example resembles that mixture.

So person A is able to store new fat but because of calorie balance
will not. But since insulin dominates over glucagon they will not
withdraw any fat from storage so they will not lose.

And person B is unable to store new fat because of glucagon. But a
guarantee against gain is not a gaurantee of loss. Given the calorie
balance it depends entirely on the amount of fat withdrawn from
storage and whether it gets wasted. Swap out enough protein or carbs
for fat staying at 2000 total calories, and the level of ketosis
might rise to the point ketones are wasted rather than burned. It
would be a skill issue playing the dance of the hormones this way to
acheive loss.

"SLR" wrote in message
...

Bear in mind I've just lost 13 lbs in my first week of induction, so
I'm not knocking Atkins. But my hunch is, I'd have lost the same
amount had I consumed the same calories of a "normal healthy" diet.


this isn't what your original question asked, though. you burned more
calories doing induction than you would have burned had you been eating
low-fat, high carb. so if you had consumed the same amount of calories on a
different type of diet, you would have burned less of them off.

-kelly