Replies

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.

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.