A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 5th, 2004, 12:56 PM
John WIlliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets

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."
  #2  
Old October 5th, 2004, 02:54 PM
Crafting Mom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John WIlliams wrote:

(quoting Jane E Brody)
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.


Yes, they can "eat as much as they want". However, the absence of
concentrated carbs sending their insulin and appetite signals out of whack
means that "as much as they want", is far less than they used to want.

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?


No, they'll still have to practice portion control, only it will be
something they have to do very consciously, and contrary to what their
appetite is saying to them. The difference for the LCer is that it's less
difficult. Seldom does (IME) a low-carber need to force themselves to stop
eating.

  #3  
Old October 5th, 2004, 03:07 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ignoramus7068 wrote:
|| 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.

I don't think that statement misses the point, it just makes a different
one.

||
|| 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.

I agree. But I think non-low-carbers who don't have issues with BG control
just can't understand this point.

||
|| 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 can't imagine such a thing as you body adapting to LC so that you start
gaining weight. What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat
other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone.



  #4  
Old October 5th, 2004, 03:51 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ignoramus7068 wrote:
|| In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
||| Ignoramus7068 wrote:
||||| 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.
|||
||| I don't think that statement misses the point, it just makes a
||| different one.
||
|| Fair enough. But, an honest and informed person wanting to make a
|| more complete description of low carbing, should not miss the point
|| that
|| I mentioned.

Yes, I agree that that point SHOULD be mentioned in any discussion about
LCing.

||
|| Jane Brody, author of books like "High Carb Eating" etc, a low fata
|| dvocate, did miss it.

I see. Perhaps she is blinded by the notion that to lose weight it is
necessary to reduce calories. Period. While most will find that a true
statement, the real issue, afaic, is in how to reduce calories. That's
where LC shines, IMO. Just like you, eating a lot of low-calorie foods with
lots of water does not reduce my appetite. If that were the case, I could
just eat a couple head of lettuce a day and be happy. NOT!



||
|||||
||||| 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.
|||
||| I agree. But I think non-low-carbers who don't have issues with BG
||| control just can't understand this point.
||
|| Which is unfortunate.
||
||||| 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 can't imagine such a thing as you body adapting to LC so that you
||| start gaining weight.
||
|| I hope that you are right.
||
||| What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat
||| other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone.
||
|| This is absolutely true, that's why I am not ready to say that "this
|| diet is forever" etc.

Nothing is forever. However, it could be 80 or 90% of forever. Shooting
for perfection is not likely to work. But to realize that if you go off LC
for a period of time and then come back to it, or do some other variation of
the notion that you devise because it works for you, may allow you to
implement an effective strategy for the long term.




  #5  
Old October 5th, 2004, 04:26 PM
Cubit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I agree with the part about calories. However, her theory about volume does
not hold water. (pun intended)

In an experiment where test subjects ate a liquid shake from a spout, the
volume they ate varied with calories. It took about two weeks for the test
subjects to adjust the volume they ate after experimenters changed the
calorie density. This two week delay explains why the idiot doctor finds
people eating the same volume, when she switches them to foods with a higher
calorie density. She would have to feed the high calorie food to her test
subjects for at least two weeks and then measure the volume of the eating.
She would find that they would eat tiny portions.

Stomach size has nothing to do with it.


  #6  
Old October 5th, 2004, 04:53 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ignoramus7068 wrote:
|| In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
||| Ignoramus7068 wrote:
||||| Jane Brody, author of books like "High Carb Eating" etc, a low fat
||||| advocate, did miss it.
|||
||| I see. Perhaps she is blinded by the notion that to lose weight it
||| is necessary to reduce calories. Period. While most will find that
||| a true statement, the real issue, afaic, is in how to reduce
||| calories. That's where LC shines, IMO.
||
|| Exactly.
||
||| Just like you, eating a lot of low-calorie foods with lots of water
||| does not reduce my appetite. If that were the case, I could just
||| eat a couple head of lettuce a day and be happy. NOT!
||
|| Same here.
||
|||||| What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat
|||||| other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone.
|||||
||||| This is absolutely true, that's why I am not ready to say that
||||| "this
||||| diet is forever" etc.
|||
||| Nothing is forever. However, it could be 80 or 90% of forever.
||| Shooting for perfection is not likely to work. But to realize that
||| if you go off LC for a period of time and then come back to it, or
||| do some other variation of the notion that you devise because it
||| works for you, may allow you to implement an effective strategy for
||| the long term.
||
|| All good points, plus, so far, I am very happy on this diet. I have
|| some experience with not eating sweets, it's been almost 1.5 years
|| since I stopped eating them, and I do not miss them at all. So,
|| maybe,
|| my current diet will prove palatable over a long time.

Maintaining a WOE for 1.5 years has got to stand for something! Most can't
hang for 2 weeks!


  #7  
Old October 5th, 2004, 04:53 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ignoramus7068 wrote:
|| In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
||| Ignoramus7068 wrote:
||||| Jane Brody, author of books like "High Carb Eating" etc, a low fat
||||| advocate, did miss it.
|||
||| I see. Perhaps she is blinded by the notion that to lose weight it
||| is necessary to reduce calories. Period. While most will find that
||| a true statement, the real issue, afaic, is in how to reduce
||| calories. That's where LC shines, IMO.
||
|| Exactly.
||
||| Just like you, eating a lot of low-calorie foods with lots of water
||| does not reduce my appetite. If that were the case, I could just
||| eat a couple head of lettuce a day and be happy. NOT!
||
|| Same here.
||
|||||| What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat
|||||| other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone.
|||||
||||| This is absolutely true, that's why I am not ready to say that
||||| "this
||||| diet is forever" etc.
|||
||| Nothing is forever. However, it could be 80 or 90% of forever.
||| Shooting for perfection is not likely to work. But to realize that
||| if you go off LC for a period of time and then come back to it, or
||| do some other variation of the notion that you devise because it
||| works for you, may allow you to implement an effective strategy for
||| the long term.
||
|| All good points, plus, so far, I am very happy on this diet. I have
|| some experience with not eating sweets, it's been almost 1.5 years
|| since I stopped eating them, and I do not miss them at all. So,
|| maybe,
|| my current diet will prove palatable over a long time.

Maintaining a WOE for 1.5 years has got to stand for something! Most can't
hang for 2 weeks!


  #8  
Old October 5th, 2004, 07:24 PM
GaryG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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?

GG


  #9  
Old October 5th, 2004, 08:04 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ignoramus7068 wrote:
:: In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Ignoramus7068 wrote:
::::: In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: Ignoramus7068 wrote:
:::::::: Jane Brody, author of books like "High Carb Eating" etc, a low
:::::::: fat advocate, did miss it.
::::::
:::::: I see. Perhaps she is blinded by the notion that to lose weight
:::::: it is necessary to reduce calories. Period. While most will
:::::: find that a true statement, the real issue, afaic, is in how to
:::::: reduce calories. That's where LC shines, IMO.
:::::
::::: Exactly.
:::::
:::::: Just like you, eating a lot of low-calorie foods with lots of
:::::: water does not reduce my appetite. If that were the case, I
:::::: could just eat a couple head of lettuce a day and be happy. NOT!
:::::
::::: Same here.
:::::
::::::::: What I can imagine is you becoming bored and wanting to eat
::::::::: other things, down the road. It can happen to anyone.
::::::::
:::::::: This is absolutely true, that's why I am not ready to say that
:::::::: "this
:::::::: diet is forever" etc.
::::::
:::::: Nothing is forever. However, it could be 80 or 90% of forever.
:::::: Shooting for perfection is not likely to work. But to realize
:::::: that if you go off LC for a period of time and then come back to
:::::: it, or do some other variation of the notion that you devise
:::::: because it works for you, may allow you to implement an
:::::: effective strategy for the long term.
:::::
::::: All good points, plus, so far, I am very happy on this diet. I
::::: have some experience with not eating sweets, it's been almost 1.5
::::: years since I stopped eating them, and I do not miss them at all.
::::: So, maybe,
::::: my current diet will prove palatable over a long time.
:::
::: Maintaining a WOE for 1.5 years has got to stand for something!
::: Most can't hang for 2 weeks!
:::
:::
::
:: Roger, I appreciate the compliment, but, to be fair, I did change my
:: WOE. I was on a portion controlled moderate carb diet until july, and
:: changed to paleo in July. The part about not eating sweets did not
:: change though.

You made an adjustment....not eating junk for 1.5 years is significant, imo.


  #10  
Old October 5th, 2004, 08:06 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

::
:: GG


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets John WIlliams General Discussion 24 October 7th, 2004 04:03 PM
Something new MOM PEAGRAM Weightwatchers 7 June 13th, 2004 01:35 AM
The First and Only Low Carb Cafe In The Country Will Open in Beverly Hills, CA This January Preesi Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 January 7th, 2004 01:06 AM
CNN Moneyline - The lowdown on low carb Kalish Low Carbohydrate Diets 3 December 2nd, 2003 04:54 AM
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet Diarmid Logan General Discussion 84 November 16th, 2003 11:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.