the more you eat the more you lose is not correct, although keeping your body out of starvation mode by eating more than 1500 calories a day is a good thing. And on a strict lo carb plan you feel like you eat a lot more than you actually do due to the fat satisfying you throughout the day. So, normally eating til youre satisfied on Atkins or whatever is enouraged but you would still see better results if you didn't overdo your calories as long as your metabolism was in normal mode.

Guys
1. I have never met a person yet who slimmed sucessfully gorging bacon and cheese burgers, cream and pork chops.
2. I have met people who have succeeded on LC on various levels of fat, but always under the following conditions:
a) the fats are 'good' fats, you know the ones, from Olive Oil, Fish Oil etc, not saturated or hydrogenated
b) their total consumption daily is enough to satisfy only, and they break the consumption up into ave 5 small meals
c) they exercise

Thats it. No confusion.

If you need to determine what works for you in the fat/ protein ratio, test yourself: select your calorie needs, then do a week of zero carbs + v. high fat (good fats). Follow with a week of zero carbs + v. high protein. Check your results (inches, scales) twice only, at the start and end of each of the test periods. You will easily see where your body wants you to be on the fat intake scale.

If neither of these producde a measurable result (unlikely), repeat the tests, but reduce the calories by 50 %.

This is very tedious and boring, but you will know at the end of 2 or 4 weeks exactly what you need to do to lose weight via LC.

Hello Ebasanko,

I'm sorry that you're confused, but what you're seeing is that there is no single absolutely guaranteed one way to LC.

People are different and their bodies react differently. I believe that some things are universally true:

If you eat fewer calories than you burn, you will eventually lose weight. But, there is no easy way to know exactly how many calories you are burning. All those tables on fitday etc, are averages. People have different metabolisms, and if you have an efficient metabolism, you may not burn as many calories as someone else who is eating exactly the same things as you and who has an identical level of exercise.

Exercising will help you become thinner and help you to lose weight in the long run, although in the short run you may not lose weight because muscle is denser than fat and a smaller volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat (some people will say that muscle weighs more than fat, but a pound of fat weighs exactly the same as a pound of muscle - the muscle just takes up less space)

What I've learned from reading this forum is that some people can't drink diet pop, others can; some people swear by drinking water, others don't drink it all.

In other words, what works for Peter or Carol or Marcus, may or may not work for you.

I suggest that you try tweaking your plan a week or two at a time until you find what works for you.

Peter, while I agree that for some people a lower fat version works best, I can't help but get a little defensive when you say you have yet to meet a person who lost weight on the high fat version. Perhaps, I should introduce you to my friend, Nicole. Nicole was over 300 pounds her entire life and has tried every diet possible. She went on Atkins a year ago and lost a hundred pounds. She is a huge proponent of more fat. She eats bacon every day and cheeseburgers almost as often. She is the one who encouraged me to put more fat in the diet.

Again, I believe that lower fat might work best for some people, but I'd like to see you with a little more open mind whereby different mixes work for different people.

Ketosis stix?

Check with your pharmacy - I paid about $10 for a bottle of 50...just don't count on a positive reading to mean you're in weight-loss mode. I'm now at 6 weeks (showing pink to purple on KStix)with no loss on the scale - Clothes are a bit looser but likely the result of increased exersize. I had hoped for much better results at this point and will rethink this expensive WOE at the end of the week....may not be for everyone! enb

Peter, it sounds like you haven't done your homework. I'd suggest reading a few books on low carb eating. All of them are a little different, but Atkins specifically works better with more fat and more calories. I don't mean pig out and gorge. Eating low carb, it's very difficult to gorge anyway because how much meat and fat can one eat?

I lost 8 pounds on Atkins then hit a stall, gained back 3 and just couldn't get out of it. I was eating as much as a could, so after much research and thinking I decided to switch to CALP. This is working better for me. Still slow, but steady, and there's more variety because of the Reward Meal. I started 2 weeks ago and I lost 1/2 pound the first week, and 1 pound so far this week. I can live with that.

I disagree wholeheartedly that fewer calories + exercise mean you'll lose weight eventually. That works fine for those lucky people who have a normal metabolism, but that's not me. Five years ago I was actively involved in mountain hiking and spent every weekend hiking strenuously about 8 hours a day. Did I lose weight? Not one ounce. I was stronger and some of that was muscle, which is heavier, but given the calories hiking is supposed to burn I could have expected some loss. Even when I'm sick and don't eat I don't lose weight.

EBesanko:

Just curious... what is your blood type? I have been reading the Eat Right 4 Your Type book and it's a very interesting read. I am not 100% convinced Dadamo (the author) has it right, but I think he's got something there. According to the book, Type O's do well on a low carb diet, where Type A's don't. B's and AB's will do better but not as well. I know there are many that have done well on this forum and are Type A, and that's where the book doesn't explain everything, but it would be interesting to know what your blood type is...

I agree with Slimmin's comments. There are a lot of people that don't do well with any kind of sweetener, even Splenda. I, however, do not have that problem. I also don't have problems with dairy, but I see a lot of people here that do (although I cut out bleu cheese, since I noticed not feeling all that great after having it). My personal belief is that Atkins is mostly right, but he's a bit off. I take more from Protein Power.

Here's what I would try. Some of these pertain to food allergies:

1. Dairy - Try limiting your dairy completely and see if that makes a difference.
2. Fiber - Try taking in "good carbs" to get fiber - green vegetables, salads. I am not seeing a lot of those in your diet. I stalled early on, but once I increased my good carbs, I got more fiber, and I started losing FAST.
3. Fat - Try to get fattier meats - Eg. Instead of the sirloin, get the rib eye. Instead of tuna, try salmon. Add fats to your vegetables.
4. Nuts - Peanuts have carbs, and many cause allergies because of mold. I occasionally eat macadamia nuts. They are high in fat and low in carbs - 4 grams, but 3 are fiber.
5. Coffee - Some people have problems with coffee, even decaffinated. I am one of those people. You may want to go coffeeless.
6. Alcohol - Beer, liquor and wine can make you stall.
7. Nitrites - Nitrites can make you stall - bacon, sausage, hot dogs, cold cuts.

Try these things one at a time. That way, you will know what makes a difference and what doesn't.

You also may have developed a stubborn metabolism. I agree with some of the remarks that you have to create a calorie deficit, but I have noticed on a few occasions that my weight loss has briefly stopped since 6/29 when I haven't gotten ENOUGH calories. If you take in enough calories, your body becomes more efficient burning them, since it thinks more will be coming. If you take in too little, your body can go into starvation mode.

I don't know if you will experience my success (I have lost 84 pounds total - 60 of which since going seriously low carb 6/29), but you might.

Carol, have read everything around: remember that diet books are written by authors and edited by publishing houses with one intent: to make sales.

The problem is that different authors emphasise different aspects, taking one small truth and overemphasising it in the absence of other facts leaves readers needing to wade through all of the varying theories.

Perhaps you didnt read my post carefully enough: the recommendation is that people experiment for themselves in the range low - high fat in the absence of carbs. If no measurable differences, cut calories and repeat. These tests will reveal what is correct for their body type.

It is evidently true that although carbs may be absent in a diet, too many protein calories -> glucose conversion -> insulin -> fat storage (or at least cessation of fat loss). A reason for many stalls.

So theoretically, if fat excess does not follow the same path as protein excess, does going on an extreme 100 % fat diet of unlimited quantities of fat mean that weight loss is inevitable ?

The answer to this (unhealthy) state depends on what the body does with excess fat in the absence of protein and carbs. I'm not sure anyone knows for sure but the logical answer seems likely to be that excess fat calories over the bodies energy requirements are partially discarded. Even so, why should the body look to its existing fat stores for energy in the presence of more than sufficient dietary fat ? and people do get fooled: they look at their purple Ketostix and think they are losing fat, however in the 100 % fat diet described, the Ketones would be largely being generated from dietary fat.

The short answer would then be that logically, calories do count: the body is happy for you to consume fat only if you want, over and above sufficient protein, but if you consume in total equal to or greater than its energy needs, you will lose nothing. This is not to say that you cannot consume more fat/protein calories than equivalent carb calories, you can, but only because that to some extent the body is not very efficient at breaking fat/ protein down into its constituent parts.

In summary: you definitely need to go into calorie deficit to lose weight: and if you eat just enough protein for your bodyweight and add additional fat such that your total calories are less than the bodies requirements, you will lose weight. But all of the rules that apply to high carb, low fat calories restriction diets apply here too: eat too few calories, metabolism will slow, muscle gets utilized.

Just my views of course ...

Does everyone count carbs and use Keto-sticks. This is my 9th week of induction and I'm down 4lbs. There's a lot of good info in these posts that I will try and implement. Thanks, John

It is a little distressing to see folks go into this WOE without understanding how it works and how afraid they are of dietary fat.
Fact is.. Dear Friend Peter..is that the Cave man didn't go out and separate his eggs.. no.. he didn't worry about cutting the fat out of his meat.. HECK he didn't think just eating grass and twigs as a way to go at all
The Eskimos peter.. explain them :-) There they are.. the ones eating their traditional diet.. eating almost ALL fat.. and they are healthy and slim. Its as soon as they try your type of diet.. then go for the sugar.. they really have trouble.
Try to get WHY this works peter. FAT doesn't just go onto your body as FAT.. doesn't work that way. When you eat FAT ..it is used to make hormones and all sorts of other cellular level function. Its the carbs you eat that are getting stored away by insulin for Fat storage.
Don't believe me?? its basic phsiology.
But beyond that Peter.. your quite wrong. There are several people on this board that HAVE lost LOTS Of weight.. realizing that they do not have to be afraid of food. ..or eat your rather unappetizing and biologically and genetically unsound diet. :-)
Poofie!

Peter, I have to agree with Poofie and Carol on this one. It is too simplistic to look at things as just creating a "calorie deficit" without looking at metabolism. All calories are not equal.

Since June, I am living proof that you can eat lots of food, lose lots of weight, and feel great. I EAT MORE NOW AND TAKE IN MORE CALORIES than I ever have. Although I have never counted calories, if I did, I am probably taking in somewhere around 3000 calories a day, and yet, I am losing about 5 pounds per week, and have since the end of June.

There have been a couple of times when I have almost stalled. When I realized that I wasn't getting enough fat, I quickly changed that and started losing again. Fat has been an important part of my diet. The only times I have been hungry on this diet have been when I have not consumed enough fat. If I don't correct the problem, it will usually lead to a short term stall.

For me, the secret is metabolism. This diet, combined with exercise, has allowed to lose weight easily by raising my metabolism. A big part of my success has been strenuous exercise. The combination of low carb diet, water, exercise and supplements has been nothing short of miraculous for me.

That said, I do not prescribe to all of Atkins. I think the Protein Power system works better and is a little healthier. Protein's been pretty important in my quest to lose weight, but I also have to make sure to take in fat. "Good" vegetables have also been important, allowing me to get fiber. Fat is important, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

JLee - I, for one, don't use Ketostix. I have never even seen one!

Hiya EBesanko
I was like you and thinking "lower the carbs and go for the protein..." works ok for some, but if nothing's happening, you've gotta work on getting the %age correct - too much protein and your body can store it to be used as fuel - the 70% fat, 5% carbs and 25% protein ratio is what you should be striving for.
Groan, I know, it means you've gotta REALLY start weighing (or measuring) everything that passes your lips - but the results of that excercise may surprise you.
I registered with fitday.com after advice from the luverly peeps here, and was shocked to see my protein was way up in the 90% range!
As soon as I corrected the ratios, the weight started to come off more steadily.
They've also said on the Atkins site to multiply your current weight (lbs) by 10 or 12, to get the MINIMUM calories you should be consuming a day.
I did this and discovered I wasn't eating enough calories, either, so upped them a bit.
Atkins also says you're not to eat 'till you're stuffed you're supposed to eat 'til "satiated" which is that elusive period BEFORE you get that "full" feeling....wait a minute after eating something and you're not sure whether or not you're full - if still hungry, have another couple of mouthfulls, then wait again.......frustrating, but it trains you to recognise when you've had enough to eat before overeating.
Also - try to keep the carbs around (but not over) 20 grams - I wasn't eating enough carbs either, and apparantly that's a no no too.
I really reccomend that fitday site - as long as you've got the nutrition labels off the food you eat regularly, you can add them to their data base too. It's been a real eye opener for me.
Hope some of this helps!
Toodles
Lynne

[QUOTE]The crulest of lies are often told in silence.[QUOTE]

This thread is very helpful as it seems to contain several interesting, yet diametrically opposing viewpoints. Peter's concept that wieght loss occurrs when more calories are burned than stored seems entirely logical. Taking metabolism into account as well as the exercise factor that Brian mentioned is another important consideration. The Fitday.com concept seems quite useful as well if a precise metabolic ratio is the answer. (Though it does seem labor intensive) I certainly don't have any answers after 9 weeks on Atkins induction and a wieght loss of only 4 lbs. I'm 6'3" and I work out 4 day/week. LC ing seems to be a wonderful approach towards a dietary lifestyle I can adopt, but one wonders about the efficacy of 4lbs. in 9 weeks?? I could lose that by adding 1 more workout per week! If I were extremely overweight then I would assume that wieght would come off faster, but I have always been athletic and have only put on wieght now that I'm older. (58) I don't buy into the, "You are now adding more muscle and muscle wieghs more than fat" concept. I've always been muscular and a lb. of fat wieghs the same as an lb. of muscle. Where am I wrong here? John

The interesting thing is when we get all hyper about numbers.
IF You add muscle your going to know it.. and since muscle is metabolically active you want to add more of this to your body.
Your measurements are likely to go down IF its muscle your adding.
Let me put it this way.
I frankly WON"T care if I weigh 2000 lbs if I happen to be a small size.
I know that is a gross exageration of the way it is.. but it makes a point. ARE we going for numbers on a scale or the feeling of health.
If you gain muscle and are losing fat.. fact is some measurement somewhere on your body is going to go down. If you lose muscle and gain only fat, your measurements go up.
Again..MY problem with peters approach is that I did lose a great deal of weight a few years ago using the low carb effort.. But you can't stay on those boring foods forever and to do it.. I had to WALK up and down the hills of Utah for 2 1/2 hours a day at a pretty fast clip, and also work out with weights. do you really want to know what frustrated me?? I got to a point.. that while I was slim. I was GUSHY! in my arms.. my tummy.. and I couldn't GET RID of it or firm it up!
couldn't! No matter how much weight I was adding to training or how much faster I was going with the walking
Something was wrong becaue I had BURNED alot of muscle to GET THIN.. There is metabolically NO way doing the low carb thing I didn't add muscle during that time.. AT BEST in only kept this metabolically active tissue .. But I probably.. Lost.
I am now at a place where.. low carb under calories DO NOT WORK.. no matter how much I walk! and I don't feel good to boot.
I wondered during that time about the Eskimos. and the african tribes that live on meat blood and fat..
Yes. folks. that is what they survive on.. and I want JUST ONE .. low fat person tell me HOW that works! :-)
somehow.. logic and experience tell me calories are NOT just calories..and other things are going on.
Until that point. .I see NO reason to eat in a manner opposite to what my much healtier cave man forefathers ate.