2 chains to offer 'low-carb burgers' wrapped in lettuce

AZCentral.com ^ | Dec. 16, 2003 | USA TODAY

[Viking2002]

Your garden-variety fast food buns aren't the tastiest, anyway. I might actually give one of these a shot. If nothing else, it sounds healthy - just give me my animal protein!

[HamiltonJay]

Beez,

Show me one study, where the put the Low Carb/no sugar diet up against traditional diets and exact calories were measured and show that those who lost weight on the low carb stuff actually increased their intake without increasing their burn... IE they ate more calories but did not have any more exercise of physical activity.

It doesn't exist. The typical american diet by and large is horrible... large depencies on breads which as I just posted 1 bun can have 2/3 of the calories of the meat and cheese inside of it! So by avoiding the bun the people avoid 1/3 of the calories they normally would have put in their bodies.

I'll believe your, unsubstatiated, claims that you can take in more calories on Atkins without modifying your burn and lose weight compaired to the caloric intake of the person before the diet. Show me any study that shows that conclusion in the general case, and then I'll change my tune.. but it doesn't exist.

Are there some people who react differently to different types of food? Sure there are, always will be, we are all unique individuals. However if the diet can allow you to "eat more CALORIES, and lose weight, without exercise or other increases of caloric burn" you are definately in the great minority.

Weight loss is simple mathematics, and I don't care who you are, or what diet you do.. .and yes not all diets work for all people, again we are all unique individuals. If you want to lose weight, you simply burn 3500 more calories than you take in per pound you wish to lose.. you can do this without changing your eating habbits by increasing your burn, through exercise or other method... you can do this by restricting caloric intake by changing your intake... or you can do it through a combination of the two.

At the end of the day every successful diet that works in the long term will at its core recommend BOTH less calories and more exercise. ANd suprise suprise, Atkins does both... though he plays the "eat only protien" card to get the caloric downplay, he still winds up with less calories in and recommends more calorie burn.

If the diet works for you then I am happy for you I really am, but pretending the magician truly is magical rather than using slight of hand or other principles to get the job done well is frankly self denial.

[tortoise]

No other effects except the the karate endurance, strength, and agility exercises suddenly started showing vast improvements as well.

An often overlooked benefit of Atkins-style diets. Most other diets seriously impacted my ability to perform at the gym, but Atkins has no discernable impact on athletic performance and arguably helps.

I never really used low-carb diets to lose weight, I used them because I feel healthier, stay leaner, and it works very well for people who are physically active. And I don't really diet per se, I just cut most of the sugars and carbs out of my diet as a matter of course for many years now. The result is that I have more energy and far less body fat than I should considering my job, and I get this with little or no effort.

[HamiltonJay]

OH and just for the record, maybe you should read the last paragraph of the story regarding the "SMALL" study... which also did not take into any account caloric intake routeine before and after the diets were in place!.

But of course, that would be require analyzing facts that don't jive with the MARKETING.... whoops, forgot, can't do that.

[beezdotcom]

Look, I hate arguing with you, because I think you're right more than you're wrong. All the benefits you've mentioned are great, but I still don't think they tell the whole story.

I think one problem is that our means of measuring calories has gotten sloppy. Most labelers don't even measure anymore; they just go with the 4-4-9 ratio and leave it at that. But surely, you won't tell me that a gram of fiber will make you as fat as a gram of sugar - and yet, being classified as carbohydrates, they both count for 4 calories.

I don't even think THIS accounts for all of it - as for me consistently being able to eat more - maybe I'm a weird freak of nature, but I'm hardly alone. Let me relate to you some admittedly anectdotal evidence. During my years at MIT, I was a participant in several metabolic studies at the MIT Clinical Research Center. One of them was before I had been able to regulate my weight in any predictable way, and interestingly enough, it was a study comparing low-carb to low-fat diets. Everything going IN and coming OUT of my body was carefully measured. My metabolism was evaluated, and my theoretical caloric requirement was determined.

During the low-fat phase, I managed to still gain 3-4 pounds - even though the study was designed to MAINTAIN weight (the researcher was only looking to determine the change in the level of a certain thyroid hormone). The really funny thing was that using the same caloric values on the low-carb phase, I began dropping weight precipitously, even accounting for the extra urination. To offset this, she first made me drink one, and then finally TWO extra glasses of heavy cream every day (UGH!) during the study, to compensate for the unanticipated weight loss. I still lost 8-9 pounds over the four week study.

The researcher's name was Bandini, the study was conducted around 1986, and oh, by the way, she concluded that low-fat was better for weight loss, based on the level of the thyroid hormone in question.

[vigilo]

You're missing the important facts about what carbs do to your body chemistry. It isn't just caloric restriction. You need to learn more. Do you think that 100 calories of sugar do the same thing to your body as 100 calories of steak?

[beezdotcom]

see here

[beezdotcom]

Beez,

Extra points for actually figuring out (not hard) and calling me by my given nickname. You're the FIRST one on FR to do that.

[HamiltonJay]

Beez,

Thanks for the info, and I am not suggesting and never meant to suggest that different people don't react different ways to different foods or intakes etc. I agree with you that labeling is poor etc etc.

At the end of the day whatever works for you, or anyone else is fine. I just get tired of dealing with the dismissal of what equates to the foundations of weight loss. If less calories go in, and more calories are burned than go in, then the end result is net loss.

I know several people who lost weight on the low carb thing, and when I actually spoke with them, and these were people I personally know well, so I know their eating habbits both prior and after they were on the diet... and they did indeed lose weight, but it was definately a huge shift in caloric intake more than anything else that was responsible... They were typical couch potatoes, lots of junk food, sugars, little activity etc etc... thei reduced their caloric intake by going low carb easily 50% or more on a daily basis vs before they were on it.

I think most people really don't have a clue what they are putting into their systems on a daily basis that aren't on a diets, or actively watching their weights. I've seen them they will pack away easily and I do mean easily 4000-5000 calories a day on average, then they go on say atkins, and think the fact they are just not eating carbs is why they are losing weight... when in fact they have cut their intake to 1/2 of what it was.. but don't think they have because they are still eating all the fast food and big portions of beef etc. Instead of just seeing the true change they have made to their habbits, they just see big steaks and bacon... with complete ignorance of the overal intake reduction.

Again, we are all different and different strokes for different folks, and certainly food labeling is comical by and large.... obviously a calorie of sugar is going to be more easily absorbed and utilized by the body, than a calorie of protien.. no breakdown needed, and a calorie of carbs will be more easily absorbed than a calorie of protien, (more processing than sugar, but still far less than protien to be turned into fuel).

So certainly you have to take this into account, and while carbes (white flour) and sugar are effectively nutritionally worthless and high in calories (easily absorbed calories) avoiding them is a great thing.

I don't know what the typical net difference in expended energy is to get a calorie out of protien vs a carb or a sugar for the typical human, but I would bet its not an insignicant amount.

[HamiltonJay]

Vigilo,

Again, much of the ketosis stuff is just hype, your body goes into ketosis anytime you are burning stored fat, regardless. I've read the stuff, I've seen the diet, I know people who it has worked for, and I know people who other diets have worked for... If a diet works for you I have no problem with it.

If avoiding carbs and sugars because they are the boogie man is the sales pitch you need to stick to a weigth loss program, then by all means do so. Avoiding sugars and particularly processed flour avoids you tons of empty calories that we are all better off staying away from in bulk and everyone knows far too many americans eat way way too much of them to ever call it moderation.

If watching the stick turn pink or brown gives you the personal satisfaction neccessary to stick to a diet, then by all means do it. I am not suggesting you don't.

I am merely suggesting what even the Low Carb guru's have already admitted, by and large these diets are just a calorie reduction process on the sly.

Sure sugars and carbs are absorbed easier by the body than protien, and as such its not suprising that high carbs would tend to create less filling meals and more eating etc etc. However the argument that carbs are by themselves the devil just isn't supported by facts...

I lost over 80 lbs and never once looked at carbs, or for that matter sugars... I didn't pay attention to fat, above and beyond the calories it represented. I ate all sorts of foods, in fact, I never didn't eat something... I just ate whatever it was in moderation and in consideration of my total intake for that day.

The idea that you "can't gain weight" because you aren't eating sugars or carbs... or that you can just eat without any consideration to volume if you avoid sugar and carbs is flat out nonsense. The diet by and large removes the 2 biggest empty calorie intakes of the average american which is white flour and sugar... taking those off the typical american's menu drops their caloric intake by at least 30-40% if not more on average.

[beezdotcom]

Well, I don't think we really disagree. I think you're reacting more to the bandied-about notion that the concept of a calorie is suddenly now useless. I can't and won't deny that people often end up eating FEWER of them on Atkins.

I think a better way of stating my position is: the dietary (kilo)Calorie is oft inaccurately measured, somewhat ill-defined, and in its currently utilized form, not as accurate as it should be when ascribing weight loss to energy intake. If we put into practice the definiton of the calorie as the unit of energy ACTUALIZED by the body's metabolism (and not just the energy measured in a bomb calorimeter), I doubt any of us has a TRUE picture of our actual caloric intake. But, with this description, it would be by DEFINITION that the form of calories wouldn't matter.

I'm also willing to consider that my body is increasing its caloric burn through relatively straightforward means. I don't make a concerted effort to get more exercise (sadly), but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a little extra spring in my step. I also tend to 'run hotter', as my wife and co-workers can attest (I get in many more fights over the thermostat than I used to.)

[Slicksadick]

Thanks for the kind advice...

[beezdotcom]

I sent an email to Hardee's complimenting them, complaining about the lack of local advertising and offering some suggestions on enhancements and additions. Here's the reply:

Scott:
=====
We appreciate your input on Hardee's new Low-Carb Thickburger and we always say THANKS to our valued customers for your business.

The USA Today received the early exclusive on the low-carb press release, but we do plan to distribute to all local media by year -end. TV and Radio advertising start Dec 28th.

We are evaluating many low-carb product options for 2004 including beverages.

Thanks and spread the word about Hardee's low-carb !!

Jerry

Jerry Allsbrook
Boddie-Noell
Chief Marketing Officer/V.P.
P.O. Box 1908
Rocky Mount, NC 27802
252.937.2800 x 1285
jerryallsbrook@boddienoell.com

[Cincinatus' Wife]

"This makes me laugh," says Robyn Flipse, a registered dietitian from Ocean, N.J. "People are deluding themselves into thinking this is weight-loss food. It is a very high-calorie and high-fat item without all the other pieces of the Atkins diet in place."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaha.....The jokes on her.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Atkins

[BunnySlippers]

I saw a guy in In and Out Burger just Friday doing this...I thought it was a pretty good idea if one is trying to follow the Atkins diet.

Arnold Schwarenegger was photographed at In-N-Out with a lettuce wrapped burger while on the campaign trail too.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

You might want to pay attention: It's the carbohydrates, not the calories.

[Nataku X]

I'm not anti-Atkins. In fact, I believe that the Atkins diet is by far the most "easy" diet out there and I appreciate its growing popularity (if for no reason other than that lo-cal sweets and goodies are coming out everywhere). However, I am skeptical that one can eat 3000 calories on Atkins and lose weight--even FR's greatest lo-carb success story eats only about 1500 calories a day (on top of 2 hours of exercise a day).

It's a fact that it's far easier to overeat on a low-carb diet (not to mention the blood sugar levels would make you hungrier and more tired)--do you disagree? A plain bagel has more calories than a two-egg omelet fried in butter with cheese and bacon...

I've yet to find the Atkins person who eats 3000 calories a day while losing weight, and if I'm wrong--feel free to disprove me by giving me a breakdown of what you eat in a typical day so I can estimate your calorie intake.

[Nataku X]

Agreed 100% with your post, and congrats on your weight loss! Super Walmart has a wonderful variety of sugar-free ice cream products. My favorite is the Blue Bunny ice cream cone. It's 240 calories but is very big and has lots of dark chocolate coating and nuts!

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

Bout time. My local Safeway now carries low-carb tortillas. Not the best tasting stuff but when you absolutely have to have quesadillas, it works.