Replies

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.

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.)