i've never, in the entire time i've been on this board (and in my low-carbing history) assumed that atkins is "THE ONLY" <insert banging timpani and trumpet sounds here> low carb diet available. i'm well aware of other plans that combine low-carb and low-calorie. i'm also aware that several people who are on those plans have reported that they're very hard to stick to for an extended length of time. but the common thread throughout all of them is that they are PRIMARILY low-carb diets, not low-calorie ones.

i guess a lot of my confusion was because this thread is located in the "general low-carb" section rather than the war zone where all the other calories vs. carbs debates happen.


again, i'm aware of this. i understand that at as you lose weight, your basal metabolic rate shifts accordingly. i know i've stated this before, on other threads. however, i'd like to point out that as it is, i keep my average caloric intake below my BMR and far below my total output for the day. based on the deficits, in the last 3 months i should have lost approximately 23lbs. i'm currently sitting at a loss of 8lbs. so obviously, with my body it's not about the calories.

now what really confuses me is that you'd disagree with me and say calories are important, then agree with pj when she indicates the underlying lie that calorie deficiencies are the ONLY way to lose weight, according to the mainstream nutritional media.

Rightnow I love what Eades has to say because I lost weight taking phen-phen and eating low-fat and low-calorie simply because I couldn't even think of eating when I was taking those pills. I would have a shake in the morning, and medium sized lunch with little fat, and force myself to drink a shake for dinner. I did loads of cardio and played around with the weight machines a little, but nothing really serious. What I found was that my body was so soft. I was smaller, but I didn't have muscle tone at all. So, I lost weight because of my reduced calories even though I was on really high carb diet, but my body composition was more fat than LBM. Now that I'm on this journey, I'm noticing that eating low carbs and thinking more about nutrition and eating for more bang for my nutritional buck, my skin, muscles, and entire body is different this time around. And I've yo-yo'd many times unfortunately. Has anyone else experienced this muscle growth after losing weight again on a low carb diet?

ok fine... i'll gladly compare stomachs with you after you've spent 90% of your life with the fascia connecting your stomach skin to the muscle destroyed, after you've kept that 100lbs of yours off for a year, and then gotten pregnant with twins and taken them to 38 weeks (36 is generally considered "full term" for twins) and were measuring the size of a singleton pregnancy at 12 months.

who's going to look better at goal? you are. why? well, because your body hasn't been through what mine's been through.

now for the record i'd like to clarify that there was no animosity intended in my post. you offered an opinion, in what seemed to me as a very motivational-speaker/tent revival kind of way, and i countered your opinion with mine, backed up by my own physical experiences. you claim your system and your book will work for anyone. i'm telling you i've been there, done that, and sold the concert t-shirts and the black velvet paintings in the parking lot. bat spit is right... what works for you may or may not work for us. and as someone who's tried your option before, i don't like being made to feel like my failure at it was somehow my fault rather than an option that was destined to backfire with my particular body chemistry.

again i'll state that this kind of discussion should rightly be taking place in the war zone, not the "general low-carb" forum, because it's obviously NOT about low-carbing, it's about low-calorie'ing.

I've noticed that I have more lean body mass now than when I last weighed this amount. And the last time my body fat was 28%, I weighed in the upper 120's.

Now whether I just retained the muscle I had (when you gain weight, you gain muscle AND fat, according to the Eades) when I was heavy, or I gained some, I don't really know. But I'm happy about it.

I definitely agree with Eades because as I charted my weight loss this time I noticed that I did indeed lose LBM coming down from 310 but fortunately I lost more body fat because of going LC/Paleo. ElleH, did you add weight resistance into your program to build more lean body mass in addition to going low carb?

Losing some body mass is inevitable according to Dr Mike. It simply does not take as much muscle to haul around 185 pounds as it did 310 pounds, according to him. For sure your choice of diet minimized that loss to just what was absolutely necessary.

I do do weight resistance, but not with the intensity that you're probably referring to. I do weight training 5 times a week (3 days upper body, 2 days lower body), but I don't use heavy weights. I was thinking of muscle preservation when I started back, just a couple weeks after I started Atkins back in Sept. I'm pretty much forbidden to use heavier weights than I use, b/c I have either a slipping or degenerating disk in my THORACIC spine (quite rare), and if I use heavier weights I get symptoms. I use only 3's and 5's, although I sneak in 8's for my biceps. I know that the 3's and 5's have helped though. I was in a position to catch a glimpse of my back the other day at the pool, and I was very impressed with the muscle definition I saw there. Even DH commented on it.

This is about the 10th time I've lost weight...on nearly every diet imaginable, so I'm very happy that I actually have MORE muscle that I did a few years ago! This is probably the 5th time I've lost weight on LC. B/c I'm now attacking the emotional reasons I ate, I'm anticipating more long-term success this time!

ElleH, that's really inspiring, If you don't mind me asking, how did you skin respond this time to your weight loss?

So far so good! It doesn't sag or droop any where--maybe a little on my butt. And I've had 3 pregnancies, too. Not one stretch mark or droopy spot on my stomach. I don't have the skin of a 20 year old, or even a 30 year old--I'm 42, but I'm very happy with it and the way it has bounced back! I consider myself to just be very lucky.

Man, I really hope folks are reading your posts! I've read many folks like Tom Venuto say that a lot of what we call loose skin is really loose skin with a lot of subcutaneous fat. I tend to agree with them; however, I do think that the rate of your weight loss affects this too. I was fortunate that I made so many mistakes along the way this time, especially when I lost a whopping 5lbs in one year , because I think this has helped my skin come back. However, I'm not satisfied with the way my skin sags on my belly, but I still have fat under my skin that I can measure and feel. So, I'm not giving up the fight for tight skin just yet.

ElleH and anyone else who has no problem with the way your skin has come back, how much do you think genetics played a part in this. Does your mom, or dad, have "good skin" genes that she passed on to you.

I think that some people do have damage to the skin in that it will not return to normal. Before-size may have something to do with that. I actually never had rolls when I was standing up, even at 54 pounds over my lowest weight ever, 48 pounds over what I consider to be my ideal. Only when I was sitting down did it roll.

I'm still 10 pounds over what I consider to my ideal weight, so there is still some fat under my skin, plenty of it! Who knows how it would look if I lose more weight? That's kinda why I'm slowing down, too, I don't want to push my luck. I would rather be 10 pounds overweight and have good skin than be at ideal and have it be loose.

Both my parents have good skin...I guess that does affect it.

Yeah, my mom is 68 and people never believe her age. So, I do believe that this has something to do with the skin coming back. How about water intake? How much do you guys think this influences this too?

You must have confused KvonM's post with someone elses. That is not what she said at all.

Some people are genetically "blessed". I put it in quotations because in caveman times, it probably wasn't such a blessing. My DH is/was one of these blessed people. Now that he's 40-something, he's having some difficulty eating at fast food places all the time. We are individuals. You can't apply one formula to everyone. Look at plants. You got lily pads, which love a lot of water. And you've got cactus. Would you expect the cactus to survive in the water? Um, no. No more than you would expect the water lily to thrive in the desert. I am not saying low cal doesn't work for some people. I am saying it doesn't work for all people.

This poster lost too much weight.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=339434

Yes, we are individuals, but we are not as different as lily pads and cacti, are we? If you look at the physiology of both plants, you'll find great differences because they are both in different orders and families. I got this information from wikipedia:

Cactus
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Magnoliopsida
Order: Caryophyllales
Family: Cactaceae

Water Lily
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Magnoliopsida
Order: Nymphaeales
Family: Nymphaeaceae

I've posted this because while it may seem as though we are really different, we aren't. Of course we have longer arms, and some have shorter legs; however, we are still part of the same kingdom, division, class, order, and family, and there's no denying that. We all still have just two arms and legs. Again, if we were so different and individualized, how can we have a qualified doctor from Angola operate on someone from Alaska with no problem?

I used lily pads and cacti as an extreme example. There are plants in the same family that some do well in shade where others do well in direct sunlight.

If we are all SO much alike, how come some people, a rare few, can smoke most of their life without getting cancer, but they've proven smoking greatly increases your risk of cancer.

Why can some people eat a lot of sugar, and not become diabetic, yet others do?

Why is my husband allergic to almost everything? And I'm not.

Sorry. And not all of us have two arms and two legs. Some are born deformed. And usually doctors can't tell you why it happened.

ETA: How come our fingerprints and DNA are unique to EACH of us?