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."

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.

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.

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

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.

(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.

"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

From: Verity
Date: Thursday, 7 October 2004, 1:52 AM
Subject: Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets

On 2004-10-06 12:09:08 +1000, "marengo" said:


"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.

As against colorfully stupid, intricately stupid, or some other kind of
stupid. How many varieties of stupid do you believe exist, and which
category do fit into?


She has no concept of what a low-carb diet
is, obvously, or how it is done.

There is no such thing as a low carb diet per se, low carb is a generic
description of a style of diet, not a diet in and of itself. There is a
world of difference between South Beach, Atkins and many other diets
that fit into the low carb genre. You apparently are the one with no
concept.

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?)

Duh? Atkins maybe? If you can read Atkins and not have the impression
that he is claiming exactly that, then perhaps you invent another
category of stupid. One just for yourself.

In the first chapter second page, Atkins writes about his diet that it:

Sets no limit on the amount of food you can eat.
Completely excludes hunger from the dieting experience.
Includes foods so rich that you've never seen them on any other diet
Reduces your appetite by ... etc, etc,

and goes on to support exactly that claim throughout the rest of the
book. He also adds that one of the factors is that his low carb diet
suppresses appetite, allowing the dieter to eat less calories, exactly
what this woman is claiming.

Quotes from Atkins:

"Those who are doing Atkins may be eating fewer calories as a result of
being less hungry and less obsessed with food.

"And if you eat fewer calories-as many Atkins people do because their
appetite is usually diminished-you'll likely lose weight even faster. "


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

I imagine that you often have occasion to be embarrassed, you should be
used to it.

How sad for her.

Not. She is absolutely correct in what she says.

Why do you attack others without cause, and in a manner that shows the
world just how ignorant you really are? Wouldn't it be better to simply
say, well I disagree because ..., rather than call others, who have far
more knowledge and experience than you, stupid?

Verity