-Laelth

I am excited about this development. I hope more people will start to realize you can to a great degree control your health through food and not have to put up with these chronic diseases we have come to think of as simply "getting older."

I hope other nations follow suit.

-Laelth

Wondering.

--imm

is what I think they're supposed to be.

But to be true to LCHF nutrition, you'd have to make them without the breadcrumbs that meatballs and meat loaf typically call for.

They look nasty and delicious at the same time.

--imm

-Laelth

If you can tolerate them, you are in a good place with weight management, nut flours are a good sub also.

on LCHF, in fact most grains are a big no no on LCHF because a single serving can blow your carb allowance for an entire day.

I just cooked it for the first time last week and the family loved it (stirred chopped cranberries, oranges and nutmeg into it).

I'm to the point where I *HAVE* to do something about my weight and have been looking into low carb and increasing my movement. I had a setback (and a scare) last month. I took a nose-dive off our front porch (courtesy of our dog) and landed full force on my chest. I was worried about my heart/lungs because my ribs/sternum took such a beating. My BP was sky high when I went into the ER, but the doc said it was from the pain. It's definitely more for my health/physical stamina than the way that I look, which I guess is a good thing. I may be more successful than if it were the other way around. I consider the cosmetics of it a bonus.

My friend has dropped 37lbs doing lower carb and doing 30 min of either elliptical or walking every other day. I told her I was going to pin her pic to my fridge to use as my inspiration

I can certainly imagine taking a nosedive from the porch is painful! Glad that you didn't break anything.

LCHF is really a whole new way of looking at food and it does turn the food pyramid on its head. Depending on what your goal is: weight loss, weight management, better lab reports through better blood glucose control. You learn how your body processes food, which foods you lose weight on, which foods you maintain on, and which foods will cause you to gain weight. You can then decide how you want to use that information to affect your health.

Essentially, yes.

As my first post to the DU forums, I could not pass on the chance to respond to something that I have first hand experience with. For the last 20 years I have had a desk job and a minimum of 3+ 20oz soda a day habit - in addition to all of the other "healthy" food I was consuming. It was almost 3 years ago that I dumped the soda habit and I remember the day as clear as if it happened yesterday. The change in my diet has not happen over-night as it has taken me some time to figure out what works for me and what doesn't. From the time I kicked my soda habit I dropped around 35 lbs in 2 years (from a high of 300 and I am around 6'-0" tall) with not many other changes to my diet - more or less just trying to make good decisions.

After reading countless online forums/articles and also picking up a few books at the "store" over the last couple of years, I stated playing around with my diet in July of this year. My focus was to try and eliminate (as best I could) highly processed carbs and sugar in favor of fruits and veggies - in addition to lean meats and fish. Since then (July 2013 to the present), I am down another 50-55 lbs. One of the most enjoyable factors about this is that, although I do get a bit more exercise now, the majority of the loss I can attribute solely to my diet as I continue to lose weight regardless of my exercise routine - which to be honest has dwindled over the last few weeks. Did I mention that I had no weight loss goal in mind when I started this and was only trying to make a positive change in my life. The weight loss is only a welcome side effect of these actions.

This past weekend (thanksgiving) was a rather eye opening experience. Although I tried to restrain myself, there are just some wonderful cooks in my family and I proceeded to over-stuff myself. This was the first time in a year or so that I had to resort to antacids to calm my stomach. 3 years ago, I typically would pop 2 or 3 Tums prior to bedtime knowing that my sleep would likely be interrupted with pain. That has all but disappeared now - and now I have a much better idea of my limits.

For me it is now easy to pass on the sweets and make much better nutritional choices. This doesn't mean that I do not occasionally enjoy some of those things - because trust me I do - but I use them as treat every now and then as opposed to a staple of my diet they used to be.

Once people around me started to notice the change and comment on it, this also reinforces my commitment to continue on this path - not to mention that it is getting easier every day to look in the mirror and me truly happy with what I see.

Sorry for the long read.

Bill

haven't had a soft drink in perhaps 10 years now...dropped 60 lbs over a year period through smarter eating, tracking what I eat and increased activity (that was 3 years ago). I've never felt so good in my 57 years....and it is a constant challenge (esp. during holidays).

I should follow your lead!

Thanks for sharing your story.

That was truly a great first post. I wish you continued success!

eom

....and I'm glad you wrote the long post. Very inspirational!

You are proof that small changes lead to big changes, and we can't overhaul everything in a day or two. It has to be gradual and meaningful changes to create the long-term effects that you have experienced.

I truly believe that processed food is addictive. Your body gets used to it and craves it. Same with healthy food. You get in the groove of eating healthy but your body kicks and screams for the processed junk, then settles down and eventually adapts and becomes used to the healthy stuff.

Processed foods seem to be so highly addictive. They do taste great and they do stimulate our taste buds. However, these foods zap us of energy and put us in a horrible cycle. You feel like shit after coming down from junk food and the cure seems to be more sugar and processed crap. IT works for a while, until the next low.

I'm trying to eat healthier. I've gained and lost a lot of weight through the years. Right now, I'm in a rut. I'm sure you know how awful this feels. But it is stories like yours that are inspiring and hopeful.

Best to you on your continued healthy journey. Amazing success. You must feel terrific!

Welcome to DU and thanks for giving me some inspiration to eat and drink better.

Good first post.

"long read" heck -- I hope you write more! Thanks for sharing your truth.

I am providing a link to one of the first videos that helped me to make sense of nutrition. Lots of other good (free) stuff on that site as well. I have no affiliation with this site, just hoping that it will be as helpful for someone else like it was for me.

http://journal.crossfit.com/2007/10/nutrition-lecture-part-1-avoid.tpl

Bill

Now maybe the people who keep calling low carb 'woo science' will quiet down.

but I'm not holding my breath.

Let's see....low-fat diet as miracle diet lasted about 40 years. So we can schedule the end of "low-carb" diet for about 2050. Anyone want to guess what the next miracle diet will be?

(You lose weight when calories in < calories burned. Balance of carb vs fat vs protein isn't terribly important, unless you're talking about extreme situations. But that doesn't allow companies to market their food and books as a miracle diet. It also requires having some idea of what "calories in" and "calories burned" are. And apparently, many dietitians think we can't handle that.)

of LCHF. It isn't a fad diet that people fail at and stop two weeks later.

Most of the research piling up about this way of eating points to long-term, sustained health benefits from managing minimal carbohydrate intake and getting a majority of calories from healthy fats like butter, cheese, olive oil and coconut oil.

Low-fat diets were also not a diet that people failed at and stop two weeks later. It lasted for 40 years as "the right way to eat healthy". It was even backed up by all sorts of studies as beneficial.

You now have a new "the right way to eat healthy". It's even backed up by all sorts of studies as beneficial.

Let's look at what people really do: A poster up-thread cut out their "3+ 20oz soda a day" habit. That's about 900 calories a day. Assuming a 'normal' person needs something like 2000-2500 calories a day, you're talking about someone who regularly consumed half of their needed calories as soda. I really doubt they only ate 1100-1600 calories from food.

Yet they claim it was the "low carb" that resulted in weight loss - ignoring that they didn't just change the balance of their diet, they greatly reduced the total calories consumed per day.

has arrived, right on schedule. You're not putting calories in a box and removing them, you're putting them into a highly complex system, affected by all sorts of different processes including hormones. Here's a good video, that explains how we were duped with the low fat crap.

&list=PL9E35F689C3F67D03&index=1&feature=plpp_video

I cured my type ll diabetes by doing the opposite of what I'd been told to do by my doctor. She advised a high carb, low fat diet and lots of meds, all of which came with side affects that I could either live with or take more meds for. I fired her and began to eat a high fat (only the good fats), med. protein, very low carb diet. I avoided processed foods (not that I was eating much of that) and almost immediately began to feel better. My depression lifted, I lost weight, my blood pressure returned to normal and I no longer test in the diabetic range. I also have more energy than ever and am enjoying my life more than I had in the last 20 years. My spouse, who was not diabetic, reluctant followed my lead and has lost more than 40 lbs and also enjoys much more energy than before. We changed our "diet" (read lifestyle, as in not a short term fix) more than two years ago and would never go back. Quality of life is everything.

Yes, my story is just anecdotal, but as the video illustrates, we were part of an enormous experiment, without our consent, that failed miserably. A change in what I ate was all I needed to become much healthier. I didn't increase my level or rate of exercise, although I'm feeling so great now that I'm going to begin weight training, just for the fun of it!

Also right on schedule.

And type II diabetes isn't a normal situation. For you, balance of carb vs fat vs protein is important. But if you ate 5000 calories a day in fat and protein, you'd gain a bunch of weight while still not showing signs of diabetes.


Exercise, as far as weight is concerned, just allows you to eat more by burning more calories. There are other benefits (ex. cardiovascular health) but you can lose plenty of weight without exercising. It's how the "skinny-fat" phenomenon appeared.

Also, in the beginning, I ate far more calories on HFLC than I ever ate while making myself sick, fat and unhealthy on the SAD (standard american diet) and the weight just disappeared. I do not count calories, and am very rarely hungry. When you're eating high satiety food, unlike with SAD, you don't get hungry every two to three hours. As long as I stick to HFLC I can eat whatever I want and not gain weight. You either didn't read my post or simply chose which sentences to find imaginary trouble with.

My cardiovascular health is excellent. Much better now than before and yes, I've done the testing. You are just repeating what the FDA and big Pharma say. They are all about greed, not health.

Why not actually view the video or read Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories? It's 640 pages of a review of the science on obesity and health. It's excellent, but he also has a more consumer friendly version, Why We Get Fat.

"Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Taubes's eye-opening challenge to widely accepted ideas on nutrition and weight loss is as provocative as was his 2001 NewYork Times Magazine article, What if It's All a Big Fat Lie? Taubes (Bad Science), a writer for Science magazine, begins by showing how public health data has been misinterpreted to mark dietary fat and cholesterol as the primary causes of coronary heart disease. Deeper examination, he says, shows that heart disease and other diseases of civilization appear to result from increased consumption of refined carbohydrates: sugar, white flour and white rice. When researcher John Yudkin announced these results in the 1950s, however, he was drowned out by the conventional wisdom. Taubes cites clinical evidence showing that elevated triglyceride levels, rather than high total cholesterol, are associated with increased risk of heart disease-but measuring triglycerides is more difficult than measuring cholesterol. Taubes says that the current U.S. obesity epidemic actually consists of a very small increase in the average body mass index. Taube's arguments are lucid and well supported by lengthy notes and bibliography. His call for dietary advice that is based on rigorous science, not century-old preconceptions about the penalties of gluttony and sloth is bound to be echoed loudly by many readers. Illus. (Oct. 2)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From Booklist
Noted science journalist Taubes probes the state of what is currently known and what is simply conjectured about the relationship among nutrition, weight loss, health, and disease. What Taubes discovers is that much of what passes for irrefutable scientific knowledge is in fact supposition and that many reputable scientists doubt the validity of nutritional advice currently promoted by the government and public health industry. Beginning with the history of Ancel Keys' research into the relationship between elevated blood-cholesterol levels and coronary heart disease, Taubes demonstrates that a close reading of studies has shown that a low-cholesterol diet scarcely changes blood-cholesterol levels. Low-fat diets, moreover, apparently do little to lengthen life span. He does find encouragement in research tracking the positive effects of eliminating excessive refined carbohydrates and thus addressing pernicious diseases such as diabetes. Taubes' transparent prose brings drama, excitement, and tension to even the most abstruse and clinically reserved accounts of scientific research. He is careful to distinguish the oft-confused goals of weight loss and good health. Given America's current obsession with these issues, Taubes' challenge to current nutritional conventional wisdom will generate heated controversy and create popular demand for this deeply researched and equally deeply engaging treatise."

As a result, you will respond differently to carbs than someone who is not diabetic.

Because it's exactly the same thing they said when rolling out low-fat diets. Studies showed dramatic improvements, so it must be low-(food) that causes weight loss and improved health!!

What causes the weight loss is paying much more attention to what you're eating. It doesn't matter if you're focused on cutting carbs or cutting fat. You're cutting calories while doing it, and paying much more attention to what you're eating.

What did they recommend in a low-fat diet? Lots more veggies, less overall calories. Which is what early adopters and evangelists did. Then the marketing folks got on-board and "low-fat" became more important than lower overall calories, and people blindly following "low fat" failed because they ate more in carbs than they lost in fat.

What are they recommending in a low-carb diet? Lots more veggies, lower overall calories. Which is what early adopters and evangelists are doing. In the next 5-10 years, the marketing part will kick in. And we'll keep going down the same path.

Nor have you listened to what anyone else has said or looked at the research. It doesn't say the same thing and you just keep repeating the tired calories argument, never paying any attention to facts.

It's not a low calorie diet. It's high fat, low carb. Nowhere is there any mention of calorie restriction. You can't even be bothered to read, without trying to shoot down facts.

not happening.

The proposed diet has fewer calories per day than an "average" diet. If you follow it.

If you trumpet only the "low carb" part, people will not follow it. They will eat food that screams "low carb" on the box.

We've been down this road before. Your evangelism is an exact repeat of the low fat evangelism. Your unwillingness to consider what will happen in the real world means "low carb" will meet the same fate as "low fat" - you are walking down the exact same path.

You are wrong. And no one is suggesting that anyone eat from a box! That's not a part of the "diet" which is not a diet (short term), but a way of eating (long term).

Your calling my insistence on a factual presentation evangelism is very telling. If you don't want to eat low carb, that's your choice, but telling people that changing their way of eating can't work to improve their health because someone, somewhere will choose to eat processed food in place of real food is really clutching at straws.

The actual cause of death will be one of the things that happens from being massively overweight, even though I was eating a "low carb" diet.

Point being there is a calorie restriction because of the food selection for the diet. You aren't going to eat 5000 calories of vegetables a day because of the massive quantity of vegetables that requires - about 66 lbs of Romaine lettuce, for example.

It's the entirety of the diet that is important. Applying an oversimplified label to the diet undoes that.

And yes, I'm well aware that we're speaking of "diet" in the long-term context....because that's what I've been doing all this time.

By oversimplifying the diet to "low-carb" you are. There's a ton of other details about the diet, but you are hyping only one part.

Marketing will follow your path. Boxes of crap will proudly display "Low Carb!" on their labels. Just like boxes of crap proudly displayed "Low Fat!" on their labels. People will only learn about the buzzword, and not follow the rest of the diet. Just like with "low fat". And in about 20 years, people will be talking about the failure of "low carb" diets, treating the buzzword as the only element of the diet. Just like you are with "low fat".


It's evangelism because you are not willing to consider criticism of your approach. I'm saying the entirety of the diet is the important part, and you are attacking me because the entirety of the diet is the important part...but want to apply a catchy label.


Good thing I'm not doing that then.

I'm saying changing one's way of eating can greatly improve one's health. I'm also saying that declaring "low carb" the important part will fail. Because by declaring "low carb" the important part, you are oversimplifying the diet to the point of uselessness.

The important thing is to eat a moderate amount of food, mostly plants. This is the fundamentals of the "low carb" diet you are evangelizing. This is also the actual fundamentals of the "low fat" diet you are attacking. But you are attacking the buzzword instead of the details, because the buzzword is all people know.

What do you expect to happen when you plaster the "low carb" buzzword to your diet? You should expect the exact same results - people will only know the buzzword, and will not learn about the rest of the diet.

Or perhaps trying to stop the flow of information is what you really want. Why so adamant that people should not learn that they've been duped? Against science? No one is being forced to do anything here, it's about distributing information. People can and will do with it what they want.

You're assuming that people are stupid. You're pretending that because there is a name ("catchy label&quot for this way of eating (HFLC) that means that people won't or are incapable of learning what it means. We're not sheep, much as that would please corporate America.

You're assuming that because corporations will take advantage (as they always have) that we should all just sit down and shut up. Do as we're told. Really? Lets trust the FDA to tell us the truth? How about the ADA, AHA and others who've advocated the very diet that sickened and fattened millions of people based on lies. Lies, by the way, that enabled the largest agricultural and pharmaceutical giants to profit off our misery. We were told (by those in positions of power, who we trusted) that low-fat, high carb was the way to health. Yes, corporations (who are not people) will profit no matter what.

You're also ignoring the explanations by others about why this plan can work for so many. Nowhere have I suggested, nor is this "diet" about eating 5000 calories of vegetables a day. You're the one being extreme (evangelizing) and trying to cloud the issue with over the top rhetoric.

You are the one advocating eating mostly plants, and that's not what HFLC is about. Eat good fats and protein. That will ensure that you're not hungry all the time. Skip the filler foods, like pasta, potatoes and rice, grains and sugar. Eat vegetables in place of processed foods. There is plenty more, this isn't as simple as you'd like to make it. You haven't watched the video or read the information or you would know this..... or perhaps you have and your agenda is just to obfuscate.

What, specifically, was in the "low fat" diet that is supposed to be so wrong.

Specifically.

As in, the actual foodstuffs. Down to the gram.

The duping is believing that an entire diet is described by a single term. The "low fat" diet, as actually proposed, is nothing like the "low fat" diet you are attacking.

You are now claiming that an entire diet is described by a single term. Because that's the only thing you're broadcasting about "low carb" diets. You are walking down the exact same path as the "low fat" diet, shouting "This time will be different!!!!!!!" Yet you provide no reason as to why this time won't be different.

There's already prepackaged crap with "Low Carb!!" on the box. There will be more. And we'll end up in exactly the same place. Then the new version of you will post about how wonderful the "Low (nutrient)" diet is, and how it's nothing like the failed "Low Carb" diet. Because the entirety of the diet can be explained with two words. Again.


If that were the case, you'd want to distribute more than two words of information.


Yet you can't describe a "low fat" diet beyond "low fat".


I'm having difficulty believing you are actually this dumb. You managed to actually reach this web site and post on it, so you can't possibly be so illiterate. So is your fanaticism forcing you to say something this wrong, or are you just not bothering to read?

I'm telling you over and over again that you need to talk about the ENTIRE diet. Or it will fail exactly like all the other "single nutrient label" diets before have failed.


Nope. We were told about an entire diet that had the label "low fat". You apparently only listened to the label. You are now talking about an entire diet that has the label "low carb".

Golly I wonder what might happen in 20 years!


No, you're still desperately clinging to the idea that I think the actual low-carb diet won't work. The diet itself will do fine. The label means very few will actually follow all of the diet.


You claim there's no calorie limit. So there's no reason to not do so. It's even low carb.

Or perhaps there's a fucking mountain of details in the diet that are relevant.


Wait....you mean there's a fucking mountain of details in the diet that are relevant?

EXACTLY like I've been saying over and over again? That you have to pay attention to the entirety of your diet?

Golly, it's almost like you're so busy attacking you haven't bothered to actually read what's in the posts you're attacking.

A personal attack is not an answer. Picking and choosing to avoid answering is not an answer or an argument. All information has been provided. You refuse to read. Can't fix that.

Statistics from The American Diabetes Association:

Data from the 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet (released Jan. 26, 2011)
Total prevalence of diabetes

Total: 25.8 million children and adults in the United States—8.3% of the population—have diabetes.

Diagnosed: 18.8 million people

Undiagnosed: 7.0 million people

Prediabetes: 79 million people*

New Cases: 1.9 million new cases of diabetes are diagnosed in people aged 20 years and older in 2010.

* In contrast to the 2007 National Diabetes Fact Sheet, which used fasting glucose data to estimate undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes, the 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet uses both fasting glucose and A1C levels to derive estimates for undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes. These tests were chosen because they are most frequently used in clinical practice.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/?loc=DropDownDB-stats

So no, eating for blood glucose control and to prevent inflammation leading to diabetes and heart disease, is not an "outlier" experience. At least it shouldn't be. I would not call nearly 80 million, just shy of 1/3 of the American population, "outliers." By the way, "prediabetes" also goes by the names "metabolic syndrome," "syndrome X," Who knows how many of the uninsured are walking around undiagnosed?

The fact that it's a relatively common disease doesn't make it normal physiology.

More to the point, people on the actual low-fat diet as originally proscribed would be very unlikely to be diabetic. Because it was pretty damn close to the diet proscribed by low-carb. Yes, you alter the fat/carb balance, but the main thing were reduced total calorie intake, including carbs.

What happens is people apply a nice marketing label, such as "low fat". And now, "low carb". And people will believe that individual food is the problem. "Sure, the 'low fat' version of the food is 10 more calories, but it's low fat so I can eat it!"

We are going down the same road with low carb. In 5-10 years, "low carb" will be splattered all over the boxes of plenty of unhealthy food - "go ahead and eat 18oz steaks! They're low carb!"

And in about 40 years, we'll be talking about how wrong "low carb" was, because people were selecting food only on it's carb content instead of it's overall content. Then a new evil will take carb's place.

Or we could be teaching people to pay attention to everything they eat. It doesn't require counting exactly how many calories, just having a rough idea of what's in a meal will let you get close enough to a good target for your body.

calories and the way they behave in the body are not all created equal.

Switching to LCHF is switching your fundamental fuel source. In the SAD diet and in Low Fat, you derive your calories from the breakdown of digestion of all those carbs into glucose. It is fast acting and will peter out about four or five ours later. Many, many people respond to this over time by becoming insulin resistant, i.e. their bodies do not respond to insulin in the blood. You must eat again to make more glucose to have energy to walk, to study, to do a session at the gym, etc.

LCHF is different from low fat.

By not giving your body carbohydrates for glucose, you are forcing your body to switch over to another system for extracting an energy source, ketones from the breakdown of fat. People who are overweight will tap into their fat stores on their body: abdomen, thighs, arms, anywhere fat loves to park itself. That is why people lose weight on LCHF. You are tapping into a much longer-acting energy source. There are no sugar highs/crashes on LCHF as with low fat. You have a stable energy source for your entire day. You might feel like eating, you might not. People who do LCHF are not desperately hungry or experience cravings the way low fat and SAD dieters do. This isn't woo. You can measure your blood ketones, the rate at which you are making and using ketones, with a standard blood glucose meter that also measures ketones.

Terrible food with "low carb" printed on the box will be as effective as terrible food with "low fat" printed on the box.

You are living in a world where people are watching everything they eat, and tilting the ratio to fewer carbs. But the most important part is you are watching everything you eat. That will not be what happens if the diet goes mainstream while only labeled "low carb". The carb content will be the only important thing, just like the fat content was the only important thing when "low fat" went mainstream.

Applying a magic food label is very helpful for marketing, but that leads to people only following the label and not the rest of the diet.

I don't think people are understanding what you are saying. It's all about cal in cal out.

I mean someone posted not to eat quinoa because of high carbs. quinoa is a super food. It's very good for you. You eat a balance diet of good foods and you will drop the weight and feel great. As long as it's less calories then you burn off.

I agree that we eat too much bad carbs
But to go to a extreme cut of carbs is not good either

It's that we and now science, disagree with it.

Welcome to DU, santroy79.

The thing is the science is behind the proposed low-fat diet, not the diet people actually ate from boxes plastered with "low fat!"

The science is behind the proposed low-carb diet. What do you think will happen when the boxes are plastered with "low carb!"?

I'm saying we need to focus on the entirety of the diet. Not declare one component "evil". Because that focus causes people to cut only that component, and overload on the other components if that's all they know.

low fat has been debunked. Read about it.

You also seem to be completely missing that processed foods are not part of the "diet". Also, because fat and protein increase satiety, you're much less likely to "overload". Lack of hunger is a great thing.

The thing is declaring fat evil caused people to overload on carbs and protein, because all they knew was "fat evil!". That made the diet ineffective.

If you actually follow the low-fat diet that was actually proposed, you'd be eating a diet that is extremely similar to the proposed low-carb diet. The percentages of fat and carb are swapped, but everything else is very similar - both require more veggies, both try to avoid processed food, and so on.

It's that entirety of the diet that is important. Oversimplifying to "low fat" or "low carb" causes people to focus only on the "evil" part. In both cases, they will not follow all the details in the proposed diet. They will just buy boxed stuff that says "low fat" or "low carb".

We need to focus on the entirety of the diet because that's what actually works.

I'm not sure what you disagree with. Is low carb good fat diet good for you? Yes. But he is also right. If you want to lose weigh it has nothing to do with low card diet or low fat diet or any other diet for that matter. Losing weigh which he is talking about it is carbs in and carbs burned. Thats a fact.

Hi Jeff47.

This post is not to dispute any of your comments. The low-fat diet (also read high carb as promoted by the govt) has got us where we are right now - a high percentage of an over-weight population (me being one of them) with no foreseeable end in sight. Heck, by govt standards, using the trusty BMI calculation of height vs. weight I am still considered obese at 6'-0" tall, 210lbs and wearing a comfortable size 38 waist pants (down from 44). And for me the weight is still coming off and all this without starving myself. I honestly have no idea what my true body fat percentage is and frankly does not concern me right now, but I will tell you that the mirror, clothes, scale, and positive comments from family, friends, and co-workers do not lie.

As you mentioned, weight loss could be defined by calories in < calories burned and by the very nature of a low carb diet you get exactly that, because even if you do not increase your energy expenditure, you can still lose weight due to the lower calorie intake of a low carb diet. There are countless apps and books and guides available to track calorie content of virtually every food, or at least it seems that way, but if you think anyone else can accurately track calorie expenditure, I would have to respectfully disagree.

Again, I am only one sample case, but this has truly been my miracle and hopefully I will be able to successfully share this knowledge with all of my family, friends, or anyone else who may be interested. And as I stated earlier, I had no specific weight goal in mind. I fear that many people will read this as the "new way" to quickly drop a few pounds only to return to their old ways once achieving that goal and put it all back on and then some. I can safely say that I have been there done that and it is not exactly good for self esteem.

All that being said, yes, I suspect it would be entirely possible for someone to not lose weight on a low carb, or any other diet, due to over-eating. If you cannot control what goes in your mouth, then any diet advice will likely be of little use. And it is extremely hard for someone that craves all of the processed food to make the change (speaking from experience).

Without trying to sound judgmental of anyone that is overweight (and I do not consider it that way as I still consider myself over-weight), we all could use a good helping of self control when it comes to our health. Speaking only for myself, I have taken a big bite of that self-control pie and so far I am over-joyed with the outcome! If I had tried my current style of eating 3 years ago, in all honesty, probably would have failed or at least only had some temporary improvement before resuming my old habits. For me, small positive steps have been the biggest contributor to my current health.

Bill

Except a low-carb diet doesn't actually do that.

At the moment, a low-carb diet is a strategy to get people to consider their diets and watch their calorie intake more carefully. That's what causes the weight loss, not the lack of carbs.

The danger is we'll do exactly what we did the last time: Low fat diets worked for a time for the same reason - early adopters were watching what they ate and total calories dropped. But when everyone else got on the bandwagon they were just interested in fat content in the mistaken belief that low fat meant low calorie. And then you end up drinking 900 calories a day in soda while nominally being "healthy".

Eating nothing but Double Quarter Pounders with cheese would qualify as a low-carb diet. It wouldn't be a healthy diet, but it would be low-carb. Just like eating nothing but Pop-Tarts would be low-fat, but not healthy.

Harping on the carbs vs the protein and fat means people will overdo the latter two.


It doesn't require that level of precision. 200 calories off one way or the other isn't going to make a long-term difference. The entire point is to "watch what you eat", regardless of it's content.

I'm happy for your weight loss via "low-carb" diet. But you didn't lose that weight by ditching the carbs. You lost that weight by paying closer attention to what you consume, and thus reducing calorie intake - for example, you lost about 900 calories a day by dropping the soda. It really doesn't matter that you lost 900 calories from carbs instead of 900 calories from protein or fat.

In essence, I'm saying you are doing what I already proposed, but you're applying a marketing label to it. That marketing label will grow to the point where the label is treated as reality. Just like it did with low-fat.


And that is the key - it isn't going to be effective until the person involved wants it to be effective. I'm 50 lbs down over this last year after yo-yoing for a long time. Why? I really wanted to this time.

I lost over 100 lbs and kept it off for over 2 years now going low carb, and I did not reduce my caloric intake.

"Calories in - Calories out" is a good starting point, but it's more complicated than that. You're exactly right that you can't eat a bunch of crap and lose weight, no matter what the macronutrient content. Additionally it's true that ultra-low-carb reduces your hunger cravings, once you've become adapted to it (more on that below).

However, carbohydrates cause an insulin response in order to lower blood glucose levels. When this happens, you can't burn fat. The key to losing fat (not losing weight, but burning fat) is to keep insulin quiet. When insulin is quiet your body has the chance to free up fat and burn off any FFA's as energy.

Additionally, due to the low fat craze and other factors (such as the conglomeration of food companies that all now look to cut costs and maximize profits to the extreme), all of our foods in the last 20 years have been loaded up with sugar. Things that had fat in them, but weren't bad for you, got modified where they took the fat out and loaded it with sugar to taste better. For the first time in history, our bodies have been ingesting a massive amount of sugar and other carbs, about 10-20 times more, than we have before. This causes a massive amount of insulin to be running through our blood, in amounts that humans never had before.

Because of the constant exposure to insulin in greater amounts since childhood, a large amount of people develop insulin resistance. Their muscles don't refill with glycogen when insulin comes a-calling. However, now that their muscles aren't taking in blood glucose like they used to, in order to keep the person dying from hyperglycemia, insulin shuttles the nutrients into fat. When you're insulin resistant, any caloric intake is more likely to get shuttled into fat storage.

Yes a low-carb diet can reduce your weight by reduced caloric intake - any reduction in calories can temporarily lower your weight. However, a low carb diet eventually improves your insulin sensitivity - your muscles and other non-fat tissues start to demand the nutrients more, and less is shuttled into fat. It also keeps insulin quiet so that you can burn up FFA's for energy instead of redepositing them.

I chose to go low-carb without reducing calories, because I was looking long term. A dramatic lowering of calories can reduce your leptin levels, lower your T3, and reduce your testosterone levels (if you're a man). Depending on how fat you are, you can lower the calories for a long time without those effects (sometimes over several months), but eventually you'll get the negative feedback from lowering them too much.

One more trick that low-carb has going for it is that once you've become keto-adapted (i.e. ketones can now pass the blood-brain barrier), your body will burn off fat and use it for any caloric expenditure you may need for the most part. This is why you have less hunger on a low-carb diet. You didn't actually reduce calories, even though you ate less calories - your body ate the fat right off of you to make up for what you didn't eat (although again the reduced leptin levels will get you eventually, but I digress).

A low carb diet, however, isn't the best for everybody. Everybody's body is different, but seems to be best for about 2/3 of people, especially for the obese.

A great place for reading about this is Dr. Peter Attia's blog - he delves deeply into the science of it:
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
http://eatingacademy.com/

Off subject, but somewhat germane, if you're into the science of biochemistry at the cellular level, his series on cholesterol, in my opinion, is a masterpiece. It's hours of reading, but it's well worth it. If you're interested, start here:
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i

Thanks for the more informed explanation.

This is the point I'm trying to make about low-carb.

Hyping the lack of carbs will produce the same effect of hyping the lack of fat - food conglomerates will produce terrible food with "low carb" printed all over the box. As a result, people will eat terrible food because it's stamped with the latest "healthy" buzzword. They won't take the time to understand the entirety of the diet, and will drop critical parts that they do not understand are critical.

I'm not talking about a literal calorie counting. I'm talking about watching the entirety of what you eat instead of a single "evil" chemical. Early adopters and evangelists of low carb are doing that, but only labeling their diet "low carb". That label will produce the same problems the "low fat" label produced - people oversimplifying to the point where the diet does not work at all.

They're already

A. Making products that are "low carb," that really aren't low carb.

B. Making low carb products with unhealthy processed foods.

Actually what we would call a low carb diet would take us back to what would have been a natural, healthy diet 100 years ago (not to be confused with nutritional ketosis or ultra-low-carb diets). A standard low carb diet isn't even a diet really, it's just going back to natural eating - lots of green vegetables, some meat, some eggs, some berries, some milk, some nuts, and a lot of water.

My basic rule is if a 1st grader can't read and fully understand the ingredients, don't buy it and don't eat it. If everybody did that, we wouldn't have to tell people to count carbs or calories, with few exceptions.

The basic point of a low carb diet is to stop eating tons of sugar everyday. There are over 50 names for sugar nowadays that you'll see as ingredients. The average American consumes 2-4 cups of sugar per day!!! Kids between the ages 14-18 consume even more than that!! No wonder so many people become insulin resistant, which is the root cause of obesity. Counting carbs is the best way I know to avoid all this extra sugar without memorizing all the names they have or having to keep up every time they invent a new name for sugar.

Maybe "low sugar" would be a better name for it, but there will always be charlatans out there, so we do the best we can to educate people about eating healthy.

The important thing is the entirety of the diet. Not just the "low carb" aspect.

Eat 5000 calories a day of nothing but protein and saturated fat, and you have a low-carb or "low sugar" diet. Doesn't mean you'll be healthy.

"Low carb" is a way to more easily eat that diet, but it's a means to that end.

find that their health markers improve so much that they can cut way down on dosage or, in some cases, completely eliminate the need for medication.

Now I take none.

- You are what you eat. And drink. And breathe.

I was taking 5 a day (with plenty of side effects) and when my doctor insisted I needed more than that I knew there had to be a better way. The information is out there. We all just need to not be afraid to try "new" things.

- Fear is what keeps us living as debt-slaves. Fear, and TPTB throwing a few coins out there for us to fight each other over. Game, set and match.

I feel the same since Gingersnaps are probably my favorite cookie. Ever! Especially Moravian Spice Cookies!

I just have to remember that I can only have them as a special treat this time of year and not every week.

http://robbwolf.com/2011/12/15/ginger-molasses-cookies/

LCHF is just that. You may need to watch protein intake as well as carbs. Too much protein can lead to sugar production, just as eating carbs will. Glucose produced from protein is called gluconeogenesis. If you are trying to lose weight or maintain a goal weight, and can't seem to, look at cutting down protein and having more fat. But just starting out, eat until you are satisfied to learn how your body is handling food.

The problem is that it gets boring eating a lot of protein!

These days, I take a 4-mile walk every morning, watch the carbs and eat pretty much what I want. I'm not as slim as I was under Atkins, but I'm also not diet-obsessed. At age 59, I can live with a 36" waist.

It also helps that I've pretty much lost my taste for alcohol. That's a whole lot of beer I don't drink anymore. Lots of empty calories there.

Because Adkins died recently. I knew people in the 80's who were on his diet that ended up in the hospital. High fat diet not only causes diabetes. It also causes strokes, heart disease and Alzheimer's. The only way to lose weight and keep it off is low fat. I know it usually is men who tout Adkins diet because fried food and meat appeal to them.

Funny, because the 'low fat' diet has GOT to be the most 'fad' of any diet out there.

of Sweden reviewed 16,000 studies, before deciding to change their dietary advice.

"Sweden has become the first Western nation to develop national dietary guidelines that reject the popular low-fat diet dogma in favor of low-carb high-fat nutrition advice.

The switch in dietary advice followed the publication of a two-year study by the independent Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. The committee reviewed 16,000 studies published through May 31, 2013."

Your opinion that a high fat diet causes diabetes, heart disease and Alzeheimer's is just uninformed by science.

They really know how to raise a good blonde!

__________

In the 60s: don't eat butter, eat margarine! Reduce heart disease!

in the 80s: don't eat margarine, the trans fats are bad, perhaps worse
for weight and heart disease! Eat light oils instead. Use low fat cottage cheese!

in the 00s: monosaturate oils can react with all tissues, could promote cancer!
eat tofu instead! Eat Whole milk cottage cheese to prevent prostate cancer!

in the 10s: GMOs are all bad, cause inflammation along with transfats, pesticides, wheat,
GMOs, farm raised animals! Artificial sweeteners too!

___________

Glad they've finally decided a balanced approach to fats is best for you.

It's not a stretch for my Danish family members to switch back to the same style of eating because it is their traditional cuisine in fact. Very high fat, including pork, fish, cheese and sausages, full cream in everything. All the health benefits people are attesting to I have seen in friends with diabetes, Crohn's, anxiety, depression and overall health. Once you try it, it's hard even think about going back. I have found wheat to be the absolute worst offender of all. It's hard to eat out sometimes, but we're hoping that once the agricultural pyramid of crap is overturned and people finally go back to a truly evolutionary diet, life will be easier.

Avoiding grains is not as difficult as one thought, but avoiding vegetable oils which are even deadlier is the hardest when not cooking from scratch. It is usually the most expensive ingredient for my cooking. But man, you have no idea how good things taste when you start cooking with real, healthy fats like avocado oil or grass fed tallow. The improvement in my hair and skin is worth it just for that. My partner who was absolutely addicted to Coke has seen the most improvements. It's like a miracle. NO cavities, no medicines, no colds, awesome fitness and sleep. What more proof do we need it's working?

is sticking to a traditional diet.

I don't even miss grain-based food anymore. I don't miss morning cereal, or toast. I don't miss pasta, or bread. I especially don't miss the way it made me feel depressed, tired, and bloated afterwards.

I ate stuffing for Thanksgiving dinner because I just couldn't pass it up. And like a hangover, I realized it's self-limiting. I don't like feeling bloated and puffy for days, or the nighttime indigestion. Just not worth it. There's no need for self-control because that sweet dessert might look good, but you know it will make you feel like absolute crap, so you don't even want to eat it. I see my SAD friends' eyes bulge out of their sockets when I casually pass up a dessert without giving it a second thought. And then then roll their eyes when I can eat high fat sauces like hollandaise or beurre blanc (mmm, butter). It really is the most liberating way to eat and we are never hungry. We're down to eating about once at most twice a day because your appetite adjusts and you have so much energy.

I have found that when I am making a recipe that I absolutely can't make any other way than using flour, I use Jovial einkorn flour and I do not have any of those problems. Another argument against modern wheat. Plus it actually has a flavor, not just paste. I like it far better than some of the gluten free substitutes because I absolutely cannot go for soy anything and they are usually very high carb. But for the most part we just avoid it and go for fat, protein and veg.

for over 30 years.

experiencing good health.

It's really nice to feel about 10-20 years younger.

First, they fight you........

I read his book, and he did an excellent job of backing up his ideas with good science. I wish he hadn't died from his fall, and was still around to see this.

enjoying the validation. He worked for decades in obscurity and ostracism.

Eric Westman at Duke has pretty much picked up where Dr Atkins left off. They have a monthly patients' meeting here in Durham that I attend.

Sure, I slip up, but then I feel bad.
And how GREAT to go to the doctor for the first time in a long long time, because of Medicare, and see the astonishment at "no, I do not take ANY medications", and take pleasure in the results of the battery of blood and urine tests - no pre-diabetes, cholesterol 10 points over the newer lower guidelines, but fixed with more exercise. No other problems. Colonoscopy - perfect. Abdominal ultrasound - everything just fine.

I don't why the naysayers and jeerers even bother - as if I would change my diet because of some puerile sarcasm on a web site. :-O

Great health is the best reward. I'm sure you feel like you've won the lottery when you walk out of your doctor's office with no prescriptions and a validation that you are in wonderful health

I do feel so sad for my friends who are stuck in the loop of lots of medications like statins and anti-depressants, but who are unwilling to even try the idea. Some of them are semi-vegetarians who think they are doing the best for their health, yet they look so aged and plain unhealthy. They say it's too expensive to go paleo/primal, yet visit the doctor often and spend lots of money on meds. And while I don't believe in food shaming, I just wish I could pass on that good feeling because I care about them.

I am only in my early 40's and have not had a visit to the doctor in some time. I am the type where I really need to have something wrong to make an appt - sometimes not even then. I am with you 100% that with the knowledge I now have, I would not change my diet based on comments from anyone. The plan I have established for myself is very satisfying and sustainable and with all of the emerging results of such a diet, I have no question that this is the right decision for my health. I suspect that I will visit the doctor sometime in the near future just to see how everything is going. Fortunately, my lifestyle change was not driven by a need to do so, but of my own free will.

Even if I choose to have some "less than desirable" treats every now and then, I do not punish myself for eating something "bad", I enjoy every last tasty morsel and then just get right back on track with the next meal. For me, it is really just that easy now.

Having gained control of this aspect of my life has been very liberating (I guess that is the right word to use) and has lifted an enormous burden from my shoulders - not to mention my waist line. The only negative side effect thus far has been a slightly lighter wallet having to replace my old wardrobe. Over the last year I have donated 6-7 overflowing totes of clothes to goodwill and some of those items still had the store tags on them.

Bill

I eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables; frequent peanut butter; frequent olive oil & nuts; moderate amounts of whole-grain bread, rice, & pasta; low- or no-fat dairy; occasional fish; occasional cheese; no soft drinks; no doughnuts or candy bars; hardly any processed simple carbohydrates; and meat, desserts, eggs & butter very rarely. I take no medications, and my weight, cholesterol, and blood sugar are all in the healthy range. Been like this for about 15 years.

I wanted to avoid following in the footsteps of my father and grandfather (angioplasty, angina, heart attacks, strokes, and associated problems) and was dismayed when the doc told me he wanted to prescribe a statin drug for me. He gave me 3 months to improve my cholesterol levels or he was writing a prescription.

Thanks to Dean Ornish -- in particular his book Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversing Heart Disease -- I turned my life around: improved my diet, started exercising, and changed my attitude. My scores have been good ever since, and I've had no trouble maintaining a healthy lifestyle (although eating out can be a challenge, since almost every restaurant menu is an amusement park of saturated fat and simple carbohydrates).

So our methods vary. But I agree with your statement "I don't why the naysayers and jeerers even bother - as if I would change my diet because of some puerile sarcasm on a web site."

is diabetic and struggles with weight issues. Over the years, she has controlled both through diet and exercise.

Recently, her glucose and triglyceride numbers got out of whack and her doctor (one of the few that talks about, AND WILL POINT THE PATIENT to, the research) put her on diabetes meds, with a "it'll be insulin if the numbers don't improve ... quickly. He, also, pointed her to a program called "Diet of Hope." https://tomf.org/gd-resources/downloads/Gann.pdf It is a low-carb, portion control program.

We attended the introductory seminar (that's our deal ... neither of us starts any program until both of us have had a chance to research, understand and approve of the program. If we can't find the research; no program, no matter how "good" or promising it sounds ... can't understand how the program works; no program, no matter how "good" or promising it sounds ... don't, both, agree/approve; no program, no matter how "good" or promising it sounds).

Long story short ... in 5 weeks, she has dropped 5+% of her body weight; but more importantly, her glucose numbers are better than they have ever been, her try numbers are great (and she will likely be off all her meds after her next doctor's visit next month), she is off her acid reflux meds and she is sleeping much more soundly.

If you suffer with diabetes ... give the program and/or the low carb/diabetes research a look.

ETA: Wow ... does that sound like a 4 a.m. informercial, or what?

Awesome results and I bet she feels much better too.

and so do I ... You know the expression; "if momma ain't happy, ain't no one happy."

For the past several years, I have given up sugar and refined carbs for Lent, and I always lose weight. Unfortunately, I LOVE bread and pasta, so it all gets undone later.

Actually, when I was growing up in the 1950s, the conventional wisdom was that the way to lose weight was to give up desserts and not eat bread or potatoes.

except the diet of ALL FOOD IN MODERATION

from my POV it's a WoE, Way of Eating, an entirely different way of looking at nutrition and how the body uses food.

YMMV

The word "diet" has established its place among some other ugly 4 letter words that I know.

I like the acronym WoE. That is exactly how I try to explain it to people that ask me what I am doing. Always try to avoid the "d" word knowing that 99% will interpret it the wrong way.

Bill

any demonization of food groups is a diet

I'd heard the term on TV commercials and thought it was just a buzzword until my doctor recommended I pay attention to it in order to lower the indicators for Type2 diabetes.

He explained that it is a measure of how fast the carbohydrate is converted to sugars, with lower numbers for a slow process and higher numbers for a fast conversion (sugar is the benchmark at 100 ). The significance is that when rapid conversion occurs there is too much sugar in the blood to be used by the muscles and the excess is stored. This in turn, leads to a depletion of needed sugar in the blood as well as an increase in fat. The lower number carbs are processed more slowly and avoid the problems.

I found a list of carbs online and was surprised by quite a few of the items especially white rice which is almost as bad as sugar. I think the rising numbers reflected a taste for watermelon my wife and I acquired a few years ago - it is almost pure sugar.

Anyway, in accordance with the advice I made a few relatively painless alterations to my diet and I'm glad I did. I feel better due to fewer episodes of what I'll call 'the blahs' and the medical indicators are moving in the right direction.