Is this better than Atkins?

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:54:12 -0400, jmk
wrote:

Right, and I'm up there with the AHA recommendations of about twice that
and that is working fine for me. All that I was trying to say is that
low fat does not mean eat all the sugar you can or get all your carbs
from refined grain, etc. Both low fat nutritionists and low carb
nutritionists recommended eating high fiber whole grains. As I
understand it both "groups" recommend eating a variety of different
whole grains and a variety of fruits and vegetables, etc. Both low fat
and low carb recommend eating lean meats, veggies and watching the
refined/processed stuff. Both groups say read that labels and educate
yourself.

ANd both groups will admit that the true fact of weight loss is not
the amount of fat or the amount of carbs, it really boils down to the
decrease in calories. Calories in vs. calories out.

For low fat, the calorie cut comes in the form of 9 calories per gram
of fat consumption (or lack thereof).

For low carb its only 4 calories per gram but of a larger decrease in
intake. (60% down to 30%).

Either way - calories in vs. calories out. WHich is why it irks me
when Patricia posts negatively towards low carb to say that weight
loss is only because of calorie deficit. That's the case with ALL
weight loss plans. There's nothing negative about it. (well, besides
the calorie deficit. :-)

On 10/8/2003 10:09 AM, Jayjay wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:54:12 -0400, jmk
wrote:

Right, and I'm up there with the AHA recommendations of about twice that
and that is working fine for me. All that I was trying to say is that
low fat does not mean eat all the sugar you can or get all your carbs

from refined grain, etc. Both low fat nutritionists and low carb

nutritionists recommended eating high fiber whole grains. As I
understand it both "groups" recommend eating a variety of different
whole grains and a variety of fruits and vegetables, etc. Both low fat
and low carb recommend eating lean meats, veggies and watching the
refined/processed stuff. Both groups say read that labels and educate
yourself.


ANd both groups will admit that the true fact of weight loss is not
the amount of fat or the amount of carbs, it really boils down to the
decrease in calories. Calories in vs. calories out.

Certainly


For low fat, the calorie cut comes in the form of 9 calories per gram
of fat consumption (or lack thereof).

For low carb its only 4 calories per gram but of a larger decrease in
intake. (60% down to 30%).

Either way - calories in vs. calories out. WHich is why it irks me
when Patricia posts negatively towards low carb to say that weight
loss is only because of calorie deficit. That's the case with ALL
weight loss plans. There's nothing negative about it. (well, besides
the calorie deficit. :-)

Yup -- calories in versus calories out is a universal truth :-)

Yup -- calories in versus calories out is a universal truth :-)



eating a reduced carb/sugar diet, results in less insulin produced.
new studies are backing the theory that excess insulin contributes to
FAT STORAGE.

stay tuned!

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:09:17 -0400, Carol Frilegh
wrote:

I hope she falls off the planet.

Moi? Mr. Mu-nster, I'm stricken :-(

Heil. And I don't mean Heil as in Hitler.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.