That's another assumption, which ignore the biochemical aspects of ketosis..



Actually, we have more experienced members here, Phd's, doctores, professional athletes, etc. You might want to do a search for Dr. Barry Groves, or check his site at:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk

It doesn't win your case by simply stating you're only willing to teach us, if you're not willing to learn.



I don't recall anyone claiming that. You have to realize members seek support while losing weight. You can find many past members who have reached their goasls.

I have lost 220 lbs to reach 100% doing Atkins. After thinking I can turn to a "normal" diet, rich in carbs, I have regained weight. Only Low-carb works for me.



Well, at least Dr. Atkins lists a huge biblio section with scientific references to prove his theory. His opponents don't do that. Easy to figure why, I think.



That's a common problem for those trying to lose weight, and follow a low-carb plan immediately after failing a low-calorie diet, and damaging their metabolism.



From what I read so far, I agree, you are wrong. You are focusing on physiology from a thermodynic perspective. In my humble opinion, this is wrong,



If you join any diet forum, you will find stories of people failing.

Try it, open a forum for people following your plan, you might find even more percetages of failure.



What is refutable is using thermodynamics in isolation from biochemistry, and other sciences.



Not really. If someone is telling me they will only speak to me as a teacher, then I would say "know it all" is the right word.



I'm willing to read, but I'm the kind of reader who has to seen evidence of the value first.

Last year, I picked up a copy of the latest edition of Dr. Atkins, and see the extensive list of research added, so I bought it.

If I find a copy of your book and am able to verify it is beyond mere opinions, and provides references, I will buy it.

Wa'il

Well, I called you a blowhard earlier, and said you were lying, and for that, I apologize. I over-reacted. Let’s move on…

So, I have found a plan (Atkins) where I can eat all I want (see more below on this point); and I continue to lose wt. at a respectable, albeit not incredibly fast, rate. I also feel better than I ever have before on any other diet I have tried.

You want me to give up on this?

Why?

Let’s look at the reasons you provide:


1) You say that ketosis and wt. loss simply stop at some point on this plan.

You wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...it's
clear that many people fail to achieve bodyweight
regulation when following the Atkins version of the
low-carbohydrate diet. Some succeed, but that number
represents only a small percentage of all those who
have followed this regimen.
... No matter how much they cut their carbs,
no matter how much they try to stay in ketosis (Atkins'
magic land of weight loss success), they can't do it.
Ketosis also stops, along with the weight loss,
somewhere around weeks 3-5 of the plan. If they're one
of the fortunate 25%, they lose some weight, but even
these people reach a Plateau, stalled in
their efforts to lose more weight. They have no
idea what to do about it, and Atkins' solutions
simply don't work, despite his claims that they do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here you are discrediting the Atkins approach because of the plateau's that everyone reaches. One can lose some weight, but only to a point, you claim. You reach that point, and you are done. Finito. Nada mas.

Are you sure about this? Can you back this up with some real evidence? Can you prove that ketosis stops as you claim?

If so, what would one's body use for fuel once you hit this stopping point and continue to follow a low carb diet? No carbs to burn, and no ketosis, what can be happening?

I have gotten the impression from people on this forum and few people I have met personally that MOST people who stick with the plan are able to continue losing weight, so I am very interested in this point of yours. I want to know what to do when I reach your point of no return.


2) The irrefutable laws of thermodynamics.

My hunch is that you are right about the laws of thermodynamics-I believe the number of calories you eat DOES matter, even on Atkins. If I eat a dozen eggs and 8 porterhouse steaks a day, I am not gonna lose weight on this plan! But even Atkins tells you this - somewhere in his book he says the number of calories does matter, his point is that you don't need to worry about it much. You are able to eat to the point that you are satisfied and then stop.

Big difference right there between low carb and other diets - Eat till you are satisfied! Do not go Hungry! Yeah baby!


3) It's a low calorie diet in disguise.

you wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The low-carbohydrate diet works through one mechanism and one mechanism only and that is its tendency to reduce calorie consumption. This was all pointed out by Dr. John Yudkin in 1960, years before the appearance of the Atkins program.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hear this one a lot from anti-low carb circles, and I have to admit, they might be right, but I don't really buy it. I am eating about 2600 to 3000 calories and I continue to lose wt. I work out a lot, but I also drink more alcohol that moderation would call for. What would explain my wt. loss?

At any rate, even if this is true, who cares? I eat as much as I want, I NEVER go hungry, I have a few adult beverages a few times a week, and I still lose weight. Name another approach to losing weight (other than the various other low carb plans) that can make that claim!

So far, you haven’t made me very interested in your book or your ideas on DIET COMPOSITION. Feel free to keep trying though!

I had posted the above reply before I seen that there was another one from you. I gather that you may be reading this forum,regarding this post and therefore I will wait at this time,to send a copy of this and the above post to you. I TRULY do take offense at your accusations that I am over-reporting my son's food intake! At no time, have I called you a liar, although I do admit calling you a know-it-all, simply because you think that you have all the answers. And as far as my remarks about your looks, all of us have our own "critique", for lack of a better word, for determining what we do and do not find attactive. You have made great strides as far as personal achievements and I do commend you on that. My son, has ALWAYS had a lean physique, and has NEVER gained weight easily.I DO have an attitude against those doctors, who think they have all the answers regarding my son.It started right after he was born and diagnosed as a spastic baby,and I was told that he would never be able to sit up,crawl,walk,or do any of the "normal" things that most babies do. Thank dear God, he was WRONG. Brendan does move about on his own,and he can walk with the assistance of a walker and some help, his record being 536 feet! Then there was the diagnosis of developmental delay... this clearly was not the case when he was 10 years old, and still not doing some of the things that most babies do! The worst doctor tho, that I had him see. simply looked at him, and with having done NO tests, said "he has a brain tumor, all we have to do is take it out and he will be as normal as everyone else!" We had a cat scan done at this doctor's urging, that showed no such tumor or mass as he supposed. And so Dr., I appreciate your comments, BUT you are erroneous in your assumption that I am oblivious to the actual caloric intake that my son is consuming on a daily basis.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/attachme...=&postid=566074 Here is a picture of Brendan, and despite his disability, he is a happy young man, who has a lot of love to share with everyone.

P.S. I don't consider my replies to your accusations as flaming of any sort, and I am not trying to start a flame war. I am simpky responding the accusations made that I do not accurately count Brendan's daily caloric intake.

OK, good luck with your research. Sorry to have p***ed you off.

I won't do it again. I thought I was helping but obviously you didn't see it that way.

Dr. Ellis, I wrote to you originally with the hopes that I would get an answer as to why Brendan isn't gaining weight, as you do seem quite knowledgeable on the subject. Yes, I was upset with the reply, because once again Brendan was grouped into a "general category", this being studies done on those with cerebral palsy. I have worked with many individuals with CP, and for the most part, (not in every case), have found them below normal weights as suggested for individuals. The last doctor that Brendan went to, was not concerned about his weight, because he seen that despite his being underweight, he is healthy. Most of those individuals with severe multi-disabilities who were his classmates, have been in the hospital many times. I take pride in the fact, that Brendan has never been admitted to the hospital for any illnesses. I understand where you thought that you was helping me, and in fact, you did give me some excellent information about the BodyGem portable resting metabolic rate unit, and I am going to try to locate aforementioned unit. Why don't doctors and nutritionists just admit or even realize, that not every rule fits every individual? And I know that you are advocating all to get your book, and I have read what you said about Atkins.... what is your opinion on Stillman's diet? Thank you for all your input, and I do apologize for your thinking that I didn't appreciate your reply... it was interesting... erroneous as far as Brendan is concerned, but interesting nonetheless.

To MrFreddy,

I never asked you to give it up. If it's working, keep doing it. I have counseled Atkins failures for many years. If you haven't encountered any, I'm sorry but I've encountered tons. What I'm trying to tell you is that when it doesn't work any more then here is the reason.

Ketosis is not a requirement for weight loss. It is not necessary. If it were, then those following low fat diets would not lose weight as they are never in ketosis.

I'm a universal discreditor -- I discredit everything that's out there today as either wrong, misinforming, or containing too little information. Some things Atkins says are right and others are wrong. Some things the low-fat guys say are right and others are wrong. You are right, plateaus are a part of all programs out there except mine. If you do what I tell you then you could go down to about the point where you just can't lose anymore fat which is around 5% body fat. It could got lower but you'd lose a lot of lean body mass too.

Now, you can lose weight to only a point, we saw this in starving Europe after WWII. Oh, sure there's tons of evidence. If you want to start with the classics then buy yourself the Biology of Human Starvation. It's a text book and is very expensive.

Now, eventually, even a low-fat eater will produce ketones if he reduces his calories enough as ketones rise according to the rate at which free fatty acids are released from the adipose tissue which is controlled by both substrate concentrations and the hormonal picture in the body. But if one overeats, the rise in blood levels of fuel will stimulate a release of insulin from the high ketones and that will shut off the release of free fatty acids. This is all like a dimmer switch on your lights.

My impression differs from yours about the continuance of weight loss on Atkins so there is no way to resolve that. I'd encourage you, however, to review some of this forums posts to see how often people complain of not losing. I see many complain of little loss during the induction phase which is amazing as anyone beginning a calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet should lose weight with about 70% of that weight loss arising from water losses. Again, a well-known fact within the extant scientific literature.

What to do if you hit your plateau is not to further lower the carbs to 40, 30, 20, or even 10 grams per day but to simply eat less or perform more exercise. Since calories are in control of weight and not carbohydrates you will succeed. Oh, it's not my point of no return, it's yours. I know how to do it as you can see from the photographs I posted on my web site.

Well Atkins has said both -- he's said eat all you want and just to eat till you're full. But he must of said eat all you want because enough people believe that is what he said. Even Sally Squires recently stated that in her Washington Post article. This, of course, is truer in his earlier writings rather than his recent 2002 release where he has sort of backpedalled a bit.

But I'd much rather we get away from being so subjective. You can calculate your calorie needs by standard formulas. It's amazing how people reject this information when they're told. I didn't make this stuff up. The scientific literature is riddled with these facts. I didn't make them facts, Nature did. People should quit killing the messenger.


I'm with you. How'd you get the impression I'm against low carb -- I'm not -- I'm all for it. But calories come first.

It is a low calorie diet. It's not disguised though. It's all about the metabolic control of food intake.

Again, we can't be sure of your count. This has been shown over and over. The average report of food intake is under-reported by 20-50% and even registered dieticians keeping a food diary also under-reported. If you feel I am pulling your leg here go get the test run.

It's all about the numbers and when you have the numbers the explanation, the real one, naturally follows.

The only (ONLY) explanation of weight loss is a calorie imbalance favoring less intake than what you burn. It really is that simple but it is really so complicated because many have made it so. I had to go through all the same stuff you're thinking about and that's how I got these answers.

And understand, I am not anti-low-carb. Of course, you're not hungry and neither am I. That's the low carb life but if I don't control my calorie intake too, I get fat on low carb. Nothing else is possible. Look at Atkins himself -- this is not a lean man or even a man who is of average body fat. When I did his radio show in 1989 we ate dinner first and he ate the baked potato right off my plate (he asked for it first).

I can name another approach that is even better: Burn your calories, exercise, lift weights, and watch your carbs. That's the killer ap.

Let me know if this peeks your interest. What I can't do however is cover 600 pages of the best info you've ever seen on bodyweight regulation in a discussion board. Every question you've asked and every one you ever thought about is covered in the book.

Greg

Boy, how do you post to a post buried in a thread.

To Suze C

I understand that you believe your child is different and that's why I encouraged you to get the test run. Then we'll see where he is. And then we won't have to HOLLER at one another. I call this technique "putting-it-to-the-numbers." Now, I could say that there are outliers to the metabolism issue but it is very rare. For example, burn patients have a higher metabolism by about 16%. And I thought this may be true for your child so that's why I did the search. But clearly, even with that in hand, you still believe that yours is different. There's only one way to settle it: take the measurement. With that info in hand we know what to do for the next step. I'll await that measurement. Oh, and I'm not "trying" to be right this is just what I do and I've spent an awful lot of time doing it and I think I've come up with some stuff that can help.

Where do you live? Maybe I can help find the bodygem.

Greg

I see where my posts in regards to questions do not even warrant replies from Dr. Ellis, even after explanations for my being upset. You sure don't have any problems pushing your book though, in replies to others. That tells me all I need to know... and I am sure it speaks volumes to others here as well.

OK Wa'il, thanks for you insights. It's always good to get another perspective on things.

Suze c

What'd I miss here?

In that case, I'd like to see you explain what happened in the study below where the group consuming the most calories also lost twice the amount of weight of their low cal counterparts:

Reference:
Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S., "Low Carbohydrate Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 2000, page 91.

Summary:
This study tested whether a low-carbohydrate diet that did not restrict calories would be more successful in promoting weight loss than a low-fat, low-calorie diet. Researchers also tested to see if such a diet would have negative effects on blood lipid profiles, thus increasing cardiovascular risk. To test their hypothesis, they recruited 39 obese adolescents for the study; 20 were placed in a low-carbohydrate diet group while 19 were placed in a low-fat diet group. Subjects in the low-carbohydrate group were allowed to consume as much protein and fat as they wanted, so long as carbohydrate intake remained below 20 grams for the first two weeks and below 40 grams for the next nine weeks. Members of the low-fat group were instructed to consume fewer than 40 grams of fat per day. The low carbohydrate group participants consumed an average of 1,830 calories per day while those in the low-fat group consumed 1,100 calories per day. Both groups showed improvement in HDL ("good") cholesterol, triglycerides and total cholesterol. The improvement in triglycerides was much more pronounced in the low-carbohydrate group. Eating 700 more calories per day than the low-fat group, the low-carbohydrate group lost twice as much weight (an average loss of 48 pounds for the low-carbohydrate group versus an average of 20 pounds for the low-fat group). Neither diet had any effect on liver or kidney function. The researchers concluded that the low-carbohydrate diet significantly improved weight loss despite a higher caloric intake. Also, contrary to their hypothesis, despite increased fat intake, the cardiovascular risk profile did not worsen, but in fact improved in certain aspects including HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

Commentary:
These findings can be applied to the Atkins Principles of Weight Loss and Disease Prevention. You can consume more calories and lose more weight on a low-carbohydrate diet than on a low fat diet. You do not have to cut calories and starve yourself when on a ketogenic diet in order to reap the rewards. And a low-carbohydrate diet is very effective in reducing risk factors associated with heart disease, such as triglycerides and total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratios.

My apologies Dr. Ellis, or Gregory as you refer to yourself on this forum. Sometimes when I am replying to a post, it takes awhile, as I am also doing mom things at the same time... so when I was replying, you were putting up another post in regards to mine. It happens here lots I am mom to not only Brendan, but a precious daughter, KaeLyn,who will be one this Thursday 10-17.
Forgive me if I make it sound like I am being rude... I am VERY protective and a VERY OUTSPOKEN advocate for Brendan. After all, I speak for him as well, as he does not verbally speak, however I am, after all the years with him, able to know his means of communication.
I DO appreciate the studies that you came up with, as they ARE informative, they just do not refer to Brendan. I have heard that sometimes there are cases where the proper nutrients and minerals and such, are not absorbed properly by the body, and can cause no weight gain as well.
I agree, no more HOLLERING, and let's discuss this as rational adults...whoa did I just call myself rational? The nearest medical facility to me is in Hays, KS.,and I don't know if anything could be found there. I am in a smaller community, but that is where Brendan's doctors and the hospital is.Depending on the distance, we would be willing to travel, to get a reading from this Bodygem apparatus, and whether or not there would be a charge for the service.
Again, thank you for your help, and if you browse about this forum, you will see that there are many many individuals who have had great success with Atkins plan, not dissing yours,by any means... just stating what I have seen here.

I located 11 units in Kansas, and there is one that is about 75 miles away from me. I will be contacting them and seeing what their policy is on getting a reading, whether there is a charge or not, etc., etc.
This could be something I would be interested in finding out for myself as well! Anyone reading these posts, the website is http://www.healthetech.com and the apparatus being discussed measures one's resting metabolic rate.
Thank you Gregory for your sharing this!

Laws of Thermodynamics for weight loss???
Somehow my brain skipped over this reference on his Web Site. Calories in = Calories out. Calories are measured in thermal units. This doesn't help anybody breaking through a plateau. Thermogenic reaction can.
Here's how someone did it; http://www.nutritionalsupplements.com/rfR51.html

Thermodynamics in physiology as I understand it - is heat. Body heat. ATP breaking down into ADP causes heat. To understand it better here's a web site that will explain it better than I can; http://www.howstuffworks.com/sports...y.htm/printable

And how muscles work; http://www.howstuffworks.com/muscle.htm/printable

I've read several articles on ECA stacking and they all say it's dangerous. Even with a doctors blessing. I wonder if he's condoning this in his book for breaking plateaus???

I have read the postings here and found them to be very interesting.

To tell you the truth, I am sure people do lose weight with the solutions in his book. If you tell people to try low fat or low carb and, in addittion to this, cut calories, I'm sure people do lose their weight. I do believe that people lose in different ways. My husband and I are exact opposites. I lose on low carb, and he's 150 dripping wet and consumes carbs all day. My point is, if we are all on a site giving advice to others, we must have done something that works for us. In his case, he counted his calories and has come up with a diet or a series of diets that follow that. I know people have lost on diets like this. We follow a series of diets that promote low carb and adequate calories, not reduced. We figure out which diet is best for us and we follow it.

We can sit here and throw research at each other till the cows come home, but the fact is, we won't do his diet because it doesn't work for us, and he won't believe us because his experience is different. No matter how many people each side has succes, there's others that have success in other ways.

Anyway, I'm not saying that we should go out and buy his book. I won't, personally, because 8 years out counting calories and reducing them carefully, has gained me nothing but close to 100 pounds. I'm happy with the weight I've lost and am still losing. I had a few stalls, but it was only when I started adding exercise and weight lifting. After about 3-6 weeks, I started losing again because I added more calories.

Please be reminded that he is right in one aspect, we will not change our minds about his methods, and as delusional and untaught as he thinks we are in not giving credit to his plan, he is basically doing the same thing by not believing anyone else has their own right answer.

Amber