Oh, wanted to mention, at my weight now 195, I wear size 14 and nobody can guess I weigh that much. I am thinking it is the muscle gaining and reshaping.

You might want to notice that there are many different diets discussed on this forum. Some are simply low-carb, some are low-carb and low-calorie. This isn't "atkinsforum", it is lowcarber and there are a lot of different diets being discussed here in different places.

You might find that as you get closer to your goal you've got to start cutting back on the calories. I know that is certainly the case for me and many others here. Even Atkins noted that this is true in his books.

Calories may not be of any importance to you, Kvon, but they matter to a lot of the rest of us, even within the practice of a low-carb diet. I don't see any problem in discussing them.

It is very true that Dr. Atkins was well aware, and respectful of, the importance of calories for some. He had a few lucky patients that never had to concern themselves with calories, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that the limits on hard cheese & cream were far more about calorie restriction than anything else, even if he didn't say so explicitly.

I believe he was explicit in the first book. I know there's a quote around here posted somewhere.

Well, it's pretty evident from my friends that calories matter, and they can track weight loss or gain in a curve with that.

But I've come to call it The Calorie Lie because I think the whole concept that we can all easily do the math on it is bogus. I can track eating incredibly minimal calories over extended periods of time and not lose a pound, when by official expert guidelines I should need at least 4000 calories a day at 400#, so should be losing all the extra calories (e.g., 120,000 required per month, eating 1200 a day = 36,000 eaten and 84,000 saved (loss of 24 lbs)). For many years prior to finding lowcarb I simply had phases where I mirrored what someone else (slim) around me ate in content and quantity, and observed that even when they lost weight on it I didn't. Since I found lowcarb I usually track what I eat, and so now I finally have real numbers for my case. If I eat a lot more food a lot more frequently through the day the weight starts to come off. The less I eat the more it doesn't and the more I can even gain.

It's not that I argue the thermal result of a calorie; that's just chemistry.

It's that I argue the metabolic process; that's biochemistry and it seems to be vastly more unique to the individual than most of mainstream science is able to fathom.

Opposite my issue for example, some people can eat enormous amounts of food constantly and not gain weight. Not merely because they are exercising a lot, but because they just can't gain it.

Recently my cousin was hospitalized. Her body had run out of bodyfat and begun chewing on her organs. She has been desperately trying to gain bodyfat for the last 15+ years -- about the same time during which I've been carrying enough for both of us and then some. She's been on every imaginable doctor recommended weight-gain plan and folk remedy rumor for that. She's been on all kinds of supplements and even medications and nothing works, period. Her body fat was so low that when she was 20 her mother had saved up money to get her breast implants because she looked like a boy, she was that flat. She has done everything from actually dieting of various sorts (suggested by docs in desperation hoping for a reverse effect) to eating enough for about 5 big male bodybuilders in weight gain mode... doesn't matter. Her body basically decided it liked being at some insanely low bodyfat% and resisted her changing that for many years. Recently it got worse, hence the hospitalization, but until now it's just been pretty much in homeostasis.

Now for people who don't have some metabolic processing problem, as it seems pretty obvious my cousin and I both must, I think it is still a unique process, it is just unique within a fairly small range. Two women at the same height, weight, exercise and fitness level and general structural size, might differ where one may be able to eat 1600 calories a day and the other 1800, in order to maintain the same weight. Usually tracking food, exercise, and weight (preferably body fat%) over time should show most people what works for them.

So as a baseline, the calorie concept does seem to be a basic fundamental of fat storage and loss; but in people already overly thin or overly fat, there's a good chance that their metabolism would make evaluation of the incoming vs. outgoing thermal energy unit math completely different.

Like most things, you just gotta mess with it, document it, and learn about what your own body is like.

PJ

"The Calorie Lie" that's so true. When my thyroid levels aren't enough, I can't lose weight on 1000 calories a day.

It was true for me too - back when I was ignoring the fact that I was intolerant to dairy products, and back when I didn't realize I had too much iron in my system. Nothing worked, and I mean nothing.

I've ditched the dairy and gotten my iron level back to normal - and things are working again.

That said - what worked for me when I was close to 200lbs, doesn't work as well at 155 pounds. I haven't had to reduce carbs, but I have reduced portion sizes, gotten rid of the junky stuff, and probably reduced overall calorie intake.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying KvonM! Case in point, I know that many people have seen the movie Super Size Me. Remember the guy that has eaten at least one Big Mac everyday for the last ... oh I can't remember exactly how many years. Anyway, was he obese? No. Would you say that the quality of food he eats on a daily basis is of a high standard? Uh, I don't think so. So, if quality is more important than quantity, why doesn't he look like Jabba the Hut? Well, for one his calorie burn is balanced. If it wasn't he would gain weight with the awful combination of refined carbs, sugar, and fat contained in just one Big Mac.

I'm sorry, but, as Ellis says in his book, no one is above the energy balance equation. As I've stated, you can lose 100 lbs without being strict about counting calories because I did; however, if you are suggesting that a person can achieve and maintain a low level of body fat percentage, then you are simply fooling yourself, and I challenge, as I will all naysayers to the this law, KvonM for you to reach your goal and send in a pix showing us your stomach, as I have done. Results speak louder than any criticism . . .

You don't ever necessarily need to "count calories" ever... but you have to do something to limit them. At least I did (and do). By it's very nature, low carb does a pretty good job of limiting calories, unless you over-indulge in the treat foods (I did at one point).

I think there's a consensus that most initially will lose weight on any lowcarb diet. Eventually the rate of loss diminishes and some get worried about a stall. I think the body just becomes a more efficient machine at using the calories given it. The Protein Power web goes into mind-numbing detail about ketosis and how the body uses fat when carb isn't available. Fat being twice the density of carb means weight loss has to slow.

Colpo doesn't believe in Atkin's 'metabolic advantage' and cites studies proving weight loss on less carb is the same as weight loss in ketosis. He says the weight loss is directly correlated to the amount of exercise.

Everyone is different. Has anyone lost so much weight on Atkins that they become underweight? For those who exercise to excess, that's pretty common.

I think this is downright cold. I have read a lot of your posts and remained silent until this point. But now I believe that you're just trying to troll here, and when someone disagrees with you, you come out with something like this....

While your results are impressive, they are negated by your mean spirit and arrogance. Badly done, sir. Badly done.

I don't think any one can really argue with the very basic premise that you must create a caloric deficit to lose weight. But most LC doctors and authors believe that that deficit is more comfortably achieved with the appetite control that low-carb offers as opposed to just low-calorie dieting.

Well, true but the only thing that really says is HIS overall calories (and we don't know what else he ate) "taken in context of his individual metabolism" was not overdone. There is no reason to assume a grown man eating a burger a day will make them humongous -- not without knowing the other food, and in particular, not without knowing that man's metabolism. (And note he did NOT eat french fries lol.)

For many people it certainly is about what they eat and not just how much, which I guess we could sorta call the 'quality' of food -- guess it depends on how you look at it. Many people don't lose weight while they are eating gluten, or lactose or casein or mushrooms or various other foods, who the heck knows why -- there is some book on food allergies that allegedly supports this concept of lack of weight loss until the body isn't fighting constant allergens. So for them not until they 'improved the quality of their diet' to remove those food elements from it, did something useful occur.

It's just that, of course, the definition of "quality" is completely unique for every individual in that case. If you are only defining it by some arbitrary or typical standard like 'organic is better' then I can see that wouldn't really make sense. As Dr. Michael Eades once pointed out, for considering a given meal, your pancreas doesn't care whether something is fresh and organic vs. pure junk, though for the sake of long term health in other ways it's worth considering.

I do think it is true that plenty of people can lose weight on endless mock danish and nitrate-soaked meats and diet coke just like they can on fresh veggies and grass-fed steaks. That's one reason I tend to think that things like 'high protein low carb slimfast' are ok, because I'd rather eat SOMETHING and stay on plan than either eat nothing (more likely for me and the worst thing) or eat carby stuff. But losing weight in a way that doesn't build in a workable longterm eating plan suggests quick regain, and losing weight only to develop cancer or something is hardly an improvement.

I think that kinda comes down to the quality question that is unique to each person; some chemicals affect individual-X better or worse than others. In the end, quality does matter, but it's the "how you define quality" that varies from person to person.

It does appear that the body tries desperately to find homeostasis and prevent weight loss. Deliberately targeting calories to keep it happy and not in hungry mode, while instead increasing exercise to subtract from the equation, usually seems necessary, says a million people on the net who've done it -- but that is once a person gets nearer their 'appropriate' weight (whatever that is for each person -- who knows??) -- and we get into issues of metabolism again here, because if they are ketogenic and burning from the fat stores moreso than the average "calorie equation diet" then it's possible a lot more calories could be ingoing and 'dealt with' by the ketogenic part of the equation, than if that situation didn't exist... I think that is part of what Atkins was trying to get across, if I understand it correctly (maybe I don't).

Wait a minute. Kvon can question the validity of this thread in a very challenging way, and I can't challenge back? Give me a break? I'm not here for people to like me . . . I'm here for meaningful conversation with people who don't allow their emotions to dictate their discussions. This thread was having a fruitful discussions of what people thought about the Calorie debate. There was no animosity or challenging here until, Kvon's post. Moving on . . .

kaypeeoh, you've made good points, and I wholeheartedly agree with Colpo. I guess I'm trying to figure out if anyone has read up more on how the body does become more efficient at the calories we eat and how it really starts to fight against losing its fat stores or basically how the body's metabolism starts to adapt and fights back.

KvonM did not challenge you to something that she knew you could not do without surgery. That's the difference.

I'm sorry, saying "I did it, so can you" is a biochemically absurd statement.

You are a 36 year old man. Your metabolic biochemistry is only very vaguely related to that of say a 10 year old child or a 50 year old menopausal hypothyroid woman. If everyones biochemistry worked the same then one single drug would work for everyone to solve a problem or everyone would be able to eat the same kinds of foods safely.

That's like saying that since you can eat tofu, I can eat tofu, which is medically documented as untrue since any soy ingested will cause me to spend the next 12 hours having stomach convulsions.

Absolutely calories matter at some point, but the equation of calories in less calories out is dramatically oversimplified. If it weren't then the last low fat calorie restricted diet I was on would have resulted in svelty slimness instead of same old fat me only now with high blood pressure and dangerous hypoglycemia.