10-12x calories law
 

Where does this comes from?

:confused: I looked all over my Atkins book and his website, my PP and CALP book and couldn't find any mention of the 10 -12x body weight calorie intake to avoid starvation mode thing I so much read in this board.

:read: I would like to read the theory behind this... can anyone point me to the source of this concept. Thank you very much. :wave:

CuteWolf

This was discussed in the following thread yesterday. You can read all about it there:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...&threadid=56993

Nat

p.s. It's a guideline, not a law ;)

But if it's not Dr. A's guideline or law, who's ? It's not in the book...

Biology 101

Basal Metobolic Rate. It's what is needed to support basic body functions such as breathing, digestion, cell regeneration, blinking, heart beating etc etc.

In order for your body NOT to go into a starvation self preservation mode, one must eat enough calories a day to support these body functions. Eating less will insure your body's break down of lean muscle tissue thus slowing your metobolism even more.

If you go into fitday.com, it shows you just how many calories you burn every single day without doing a single exercise.

the problem is that the math don't add up. At least in my case... I weight 314. If I follow this guideline I would have to eat 3,140 cals per day to avoid starvation mode. (10 x 314). I don't think so. According to fitday my basal is 2200. So, what gives.

Now if I calculate my LEAN BODY WEIGHT, not my TOTAL weight, then it will make sense. That's the reason I would like to read the theory behind the concept. I think the "guideline" is not as black and white as portrayed in here.

CuteWolf

ps... I'm a researcher and I get all weird when numbers don't tell me the whole story. :daze:

:wave: Hi CuteWolf, I gained weight eating LC and force feeding myself with 10-12 times body weight in calories. I listened to my body and made appropriate adjustments--including a vow to never count calories again! I wrote to the Atkins Center a few days ago and asked them this very question about calories. I am awaiting their response and will post it if and when they get back to me.

When I was a low-calorie/low-fat 'dieter,' I used to count calories and every bite of food that went in my mouth to insure I was eating few enough. I cannot save my sanity and count calories at all these days, whether I am counting them to make sure they are up or down! I don't count calories at all so I have no idea how many I consume. I eat fresh, whole, natural LC foods and I stop eating when I feel full. By not force feeding or starving myself in the 7 months I have been eating LC, I have found my real appetite and I feel my metabolism is on its way to total healing. :)

multiply by goal weight not actual
 

I think it's 10 to 12 times your GOAL (or ideal) body weight, not your current body weight!

It is your CURRENT weight - it is also a GUIDELINE.

Why 10x calories?

Nat

I think the worst flaw in the 10-12 guideline is: What is one to do on the way down the scale? :confused:

Say I start off consuming 2500 calories per day because my start weight is 250. I lose 125 pounds and arrive at my goal weight 125. Now, I must adjust to eating over a thousand less calories per day. I have trained myself to eat a lot during my months of removing the weight, and I have enjoyed eating this quantity of food. My stomach has of course shrunk, but I was used to eating so much food and even forcing some of those calories down; what to do now? I am faced with cutting back. Or do I cut down calorie by calorie as I lose pound by pound and hope for the best that I will be ok living with less calories when I get to goal? This screams 'diet' not healthy WOE to me.

I have found it so much easier to eat till I am full and only count carbs. At the beginning, doing so was terribly confusing, yes. It was not always clear when I was hungry...But within a few weeks of LCing I could actually tell my system was changing and I could sense and read my own appetite. ;)

I see your dilema, Twiggy - but the theory is flawed :)

You start off at 250 lbs with a lot of body fat and some lean mass - you need to eat to support your muscle and your fat loss, approximately 2000 calories (remember, 10-12x is a guideline for minimal calories). At the outset eating even 2000 calories is difficult - you're just not hungry.

The thing about LC is that because it is protein adequate and if you are eating sufficient calories from fat to sustain metabolism what you lose (reflected on the evil scale) is FAT. This is evident in the nature of losses with LCing - whooshes of scale weight and times when only inches are lost. What is happening? You are building muscle and it is replacing the fat you are losing. What does this mean? You are raising your metabolism. This translates into being able to consume more calories (while weighing less) and still losing.

As you approach your goal / target weight you should be increasing carbs ever so slightly and calories as well to slow loss down. You want to coast into Maintenance, not come crashing down.

At 125 lbs you would only be eating to sustain metabolism if you were still losing fat.

Maintenance calories are that which you can eat w/o gaining or losing weight. Guidelines for Maintenance are 15-18x your body weight (assuming, again, a normal metabolism). 18x 125 is 2250 calories :)

The general theme I am seeing a lot lately is "Oh NO, 10x my body weight? I can't eat that much" and what you are saying is "At 125 lbs ten times my body weight isn't enough" - but 10x isn't the upper limit, it is the bare minimum for those with a healthy metabolism. There are studies that show consistently eating less than 1300-1400 calories a day will permanently slow your metabolism. This means that you're stuck at that level of calories forever if you want to keep the weight off. That isn't living!

Nat

Well, I'm going to share my experience and throw it to the discussion mix. I started locarbing Nov 2000 at 385 pounds. I went thru the first 40 pounds in 4 months with no problem at all just following induction guidelines with NO idea whatsover of how many calories I consumed. Didn't count protein either. I ate meat, eggs, green stuff and cheese and coffee and life was good. Took me 8 months to get rid of the next 30 pounds. Getting worried there but kept going. Still no idea of calories.. I had to learn to be patient and life was still good. Beginning of this year I hit 304. So damn close to a mayor goal!!! But then all hell broke loose, went back up to 310 with NO REASON and that was the beginning of this stupid BIG STALL I'm dealing with now.
I've tried every stall breaker I read about and nothing. Went to the Dr and check metabolism, thyroid, all normal.
Atkins mention in his book that sometimes is good to just go away from his diet to some other diet to break the cycle. Well, I went totally vegetarian for 3 weeks. Hated every second of those 3 weeks, felt miserable, sugar off the chart and hit 320. No good, back to lo carb. Went back to Induction and went back to 314 and stuck again. That's when I signed up to this group and fitday.

Read about the 10x... for me that would be around 3140 cals per day. Now, I didn't get this big eating like a pigeon, You won't hear me saying...oh no, I can't eat that much. I definitely can. the problem is ... I'm still not losing. I asked for input in my fitday journal and was told by Terrydoodle that the 10x don't apply to 100+ (over) folks. She also mentioned I should control proteins.
Well, I dropped an average of 1,000 cals per day. Now I eat between 2300 - 2500 cals a day, which by the way is 10x my Lean Body Mass And guess what? I've lost 4 pounds in a week. I even got some "peesticks" and they are showing a nice shade of pink. Life is starting to be really good again.

And that's my story. At least for my experience, the 10x cals total body weight didn't fly. Maybe for big folks like me Lean Body Mass seems to be a more accurate guideline.

One important detail I need to mention... the only change I've made is amount and proportions of what I eat and NOT what I eat. I still eat meat, cheese, eggs, green stuff and coffee just a 1000 cals less of them.

Thank you Nat for the links to discussions about this subject. I enjoyed reading them. :thup:

CuteWolf :wave:

Lean body mass?!!
 

Hey I've been reading all these posts and was wondering how I could find out my lean body mass? I've never heard of it before!!

Thankyou! xx

Sorry don't worry about it - I looked it up on the net.

:wave: Nat, what you are saying makes a lot of sense. I have seen the results of the evil scale barely reflecting weight loss, yet I have gone from a size 12 to a size 6 and/or 4. There is definitely something to be said for metabolism adjusting, healing, muscle building and being able to tolerate and even function better at a higher calorie consumption.

My question about the 10-12 guideline might be better asked as: Is the 10-12 guideline therefore always related to one's start weight? Going back to my example: The lowcarber starts at 250 lbs.. She follows the guideline and consumes 2500 calories per day. She loses half her body weight and arrives at goal of 125. Follwing maintaince guidelines at 15-18x, she is still eating around the same amount of calories she began with. My goal is 125, but I began my LC journey at a top weight of 150 lbs. Even at her new weight she still is allowed to/has to eat more calories than I do because my start weight was so much lower than hers. Since my start weight times 10-12 would have put me at a lower calorie allotment to begin with, but at my goal weight I am the same as her, she should always consume more and I should always consume less? :confused:

I do understand that the 10-12 idea is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. But which weight during what part of the journey on LC really applies and why should start weight, i.e., heaviest weight,dictate what the metabolism can bear calorically?

Twiggy, if only it were an exact science :)

The best advice I have seen given is to start with the basics (12x) and see how that works. If it doesn't move down (11x). If that's not working move further (10x). In otherwords, find that 'zone' that works for you. If you're 300 lbs it may very well be 8x. But I can assure you it's not going to be 3x (which is something we see here).

It's fair to say that if someone is coming from a protein inadequate/ low calorie / low fat diet they are going to have some metabolic healing to do. Insulin resistance could be sky high. This was my case. At 245 lbs just eating 1800 calories took me all day long, and a lot of butter. 70 lbs later I now eat 2400, and it's not just a function of being more active. It's a function of a metabolism that now works like it should. It's a function of 140 lbs of lean muscle mass that needs to be fueled. It's because of LCing :)

When you hear us push "eat, eat, eat" it's to ensure that at least some of that message gets through - This forum is unlike any other I have visited in that it's more interested in your health than your quick and speedy fat loss.

My assumption in the case you described would boil down to this: at 150 lbs your metabolism would be less likely to be as out of whack as a 250 lb woman's. Eating 1500 calories might be too little for you (it is for many of our members), 1800 might suit you better. Or you might be like Jeanner and need 2300 :) Guidelines are just a starting point - there are always going to be the exceptions.

I think the only way to determine where you should start is to pick something that is at least healthy and see how you feel. Healthy for me would be 1600-1800 calories - and most days I'm starving on that!

Cutewolf - I think you need to re-read this thread - No one ever said "sit down and eat 10x your weight in calories, or else" It's a guideline to provide people with information who are trying to get by on 1000 calories a day thinking it's OK. The fact that you are now eating a healthy amount of food and losing weight is wonderful. This is a sure way to stay healthy and continue to lose. It's also quite possible that having lost such a considerable amount of weight you were going to stall for a while regardless of what you ate - bodies need a 'time out'.

Kate- head over to the BFL forum (under Exercise) there is a thread stuck at the top called "LC and BFL: tips and hints" You'll find a few links in the first post which lead to BF (body fat) calculators - that will give you your Lean Body Mass (LBM).

Twiggy - I'm not really sure I answered you, I'm not really sure there is a definitive answer.

Nat

Nat

I'm perfectly capable to read and understand what I'm reading. I can point you to multiple threads in which people comment about their plateus and the FIRST reply they get is ... make sure you eat 10-12x times your body weight in cals.

I just asked for the theory behind this "guideline"... thanks for your opinion.

CuteWolf

Cutewolf,

I also needed to cut my calories to break a stall. I know that's not what everyone else wants to hear, but I do remember reading in 'New Diet Revolution' Atkins says that if you are not losing weight to 'look at the number of calories you are eating. I never said that calories don't count' , and one of the things he suggests break a stall is to cut calories. He also says to 'eat until you are satisfied, not until you are stuffed'.

I think that the 10 times your body weight is a guideline that might not apply to everyone. Some people like me who are older have much slower metabolisms just because of our age, and our bodies just don't require the same number of calories as a 25 year old's. I can see how much we've changed as we've gotten older at every family holiday gathering. I cook less and less food each year because we just don't eat as much as we could when we were younger. That's one of the reasons for avoiding junk and getting our calories from nutrient dense foods.

I know that I also have begun to listen more closely to my body -- my calorie intake can vary widely from day to day -- some days I'm not very hungry and I eat less, and others I am more hungry and I eat more. This really goes along with the theory about 'keeping your body guessing' because it never knows how much I'll eat from day to day, and also seems to be a more healthy approach than forcing myself to eat something that I really don't want. Isn't that what we all did when we tried Weight Watchers?

Thanks for that last post, Cutewolf
 

I was just about to post the same thing myself.

Any time someone posts something that indicates they have not eaten 10X their weight, the first reply virtually always tells the person they aren't eating enough. I have come to think of them as the 10X police.

Atkins has been refining his program for over thirty years. Until he publishes the 10X guideline, I would like to be able to ignore it, for myself, on this forum without being told I need to eat more.

One thing I don't see a lot of discussion about on these forum is that every single body is different. There are no hard and fast rules about what is right for everyone. Metabolisms vary even more than body types.

Have any of you known someone who was force fed in a hospital because of anorexia? My daughter was, for three months. She was forced to eat extremely high amounts of calories and fats and might go for weeks without gaining an ounce. It was a really awful environment because she got shamed and blamed for not gaining even though she was eating every single bite they made her eat. obviously, she had really messed up her metabolism, not to mention her body's ability to absorb nutrients.

Is it possible that serious obese people have messed up their metabolism? Is it possible that, since each person's metabolism is different, that each person needs to eat different amounts of calories to get their desired results? Dr. Atkins writes at length about how each person must calibrate their increase in food, calories, carbs, whatever.

I see something similar going on in these forums with the 10X thing. It would be more helpful to me if people kept their posts focussed on what works for them instead of TELLING others what they should or should not be doing. Basic feedback guidelines encourage us to speak from our own experience and not to project onto another's.

Does anyone know of controlled studies in which participants were strictly fed 10X their weight with high fat/low carb?

If you are going to tell me it is a guideline,please reference the scientific study that established it.

Feedback
 

I think it ok to offer advice to someone's post when they have asked for it. It is my understanding that the journals are for each person to use in the way that helps them best.

Speaking of guidelines, are there any guidelines for how to give feedback on this forum?

Yes, Isabel, there is a very convenient way of providing feedback. At the bottom, in the lower left corner, you'll see a link
"Report this post to a moderator". You may use that form, or you may PM any moderator or admin at any time.

In defense of Nat, I'd just like to say that the woman knows her stuff and she knows it inside and out, backwards and forwards. She's done hundreds of hours of research and she's kind enough to spend a hundred more every month supporting all of us anytime we ask. That is not to say that I haven't at times challenged what she has advised, but 99.9% of the time I find that it was my error in not reading her words carefully enough, or because I didn't bother to do the research myself so that I could thoroughly understand what she was trying to relay. That goes for every mod, mentor and admin...not just Nat!

Anyway, it really does provide for fertile learning ground when discussions like these come up. I always learn something new...and you will too. Just stay tuned and keep posting!

Biology 102
 

I thought that the body eats fat when it does not get enough daily food to support basic body functions. I thought the point of getting into ketosis was so that the body would eat fat instead of lean muscle tissue when the body need to support basic body functions. I don't think you can go into starvation mode if you are in ketosis AND you have fat that can be used to support the body functions.

This is my opinion, not an assertion of fact.

Feedback we give each other
 

When I post something and you tell me what you think of it, for example when you TELL me that I am not eating enough calories, you are giving me feedback. But telling me what is wrong with me is not healthy feedback. I am not talking about general feedback about this forum. And when I use the word 'you' here I do not refer to you specifically.

I am suggesting that this forum could benefit from understanding the basic concepts of healthy feedback. It is best to speak from your own experience, not TELL others what to do.

In the case of science or pseudo-science, it is especially prudent to make it clear that one is speaking from one's own experience and stating one's own opinions.

Also, I enjoy and respect Nat's knowledge.

I also enjoy and respect Dr. Atkins THIRTY YEARS of the professional practice of medicine.

Show me the scientific study that has established the 10X guideline.

A blast from the past!
 

I get old books from library book sales sometimes, and last summer I picked up a copy of the 1972 Atkins book.

Here are some interesting things he has had to say.

p. 31 "But quantity cutting is not the only way to lose weight. The other way, the more natural way, is merely by eliminating the carbohydrates. Then it is not necessary to worry about how much you eat. When you can eat as much as you want at any hour of the day or night, how can you ever get hungry?
When in doubt--eat!"

p. 32 "Selectively eliminate those foods that trigger the release of insulin and the excessive hunger goes away. That is why I say--eat whatever it takes to satisfy your hunger--except insulin-stimulating foods, and if you're not certain whether of not you're hungry, eat anyway!"

p. 84 "Even the medical profession admits that low calorie diets haven't worked. We've all been exposed to a great number of reducing diets but there are really only two basic categories: those that depend on reducing the total intake of calories, and those that depend on the reduction of carbohydrate, where calories needn't be counted. The balanced low-calorie diet had been the medical fashion for so long that to suggest any alternative invites professional excommunication. Yet even most doctors admit (at least privately!) the ineffectiveness of low-calorie diets--balanced or unbalanced."

p. 85 " Can you count the reasons why low-calorie diets don't work? We know that low-calorie diets don't touch the primary cause of most overweight--disturbed carbohydrate metabolism.
Lower energy output. Another reason why low-calorie diets fail to work is that the dieter adjusts to the low-calorie intake with a proportionate decrease in total energy output. Dr. George Bray, of Tufts University School of Medicine, had demonstrated that people on low-calorie diets actually develop lower total body energy requirements and thus burn fewer calories. The longer they remain on a low-calorie diet, the lower becomes their basal metabolism and they less they lose until eventually the low-calorie diet may stop working."

p. 91 "Fat girls ate 25 percent less--and gained on it! In the Berkeley, California, school system, Ruth L. Hueneman followed the daily calorie intake of 950 teen-agers from the nineth to the twelfth grades. She took body measurements of each. And she took careful dietary histories. This is what she reported in 1968: The average calorie intake for all ninth-grade boys who weren't overweight was over 3,000 calories per day. For similar girls it was 2,060 calories per day. But the average calorie intake of the overweight boys was only 2,360 calories per day. And the fat girls only took in an average of 1,530 calories per day. In the three years the study covered, there were no significant changes in the percentage of overweight and non-overweight students. But there was one very sad and important change. In spite of eating less during this three years, both fat boys and fat girls got fatter."

p. 275 "I'm not saying that "calories don't count." I'm saying that a low calorie diet is a second-best diet."

p. 26 "The more I ate, the more I lost. I actually ate this weight off. I spent more time eating during those six weeks than usual. This was because the very idea of dieting made me afraid of being hungry. I never was hungry. I was just afraid that I would be hungry, so I kept eating. And it didn't seem to slow me down."

Now, of course, you'll want to be following the latest edition of Dr. Atkin's New Diet Revolution because it is the most updated and revised. But I found the old book to be an interesting read.

Elihnig

I found this at the Atkins Center FAQ page. It is a pretty good explanation of Dr. Atkins' approach to calories. Dr. Atkins mentions nothing about raising calories; he instead reinforces that his nutritional approach does not give one 'license to gorge.'

Atkins Center

I'm used to counting calories. How many am I allowed on Induction?

There is no need to count calories. The Atkins Nutritional Approach counts grams of carbohydrates instead of calories. In Induction, you are allowed 20 grams of carbohydrates. When you progress to Ongoing Weight Loss, you gradually add carbohydrates in 5-gram increments as you move toward Pre-Maintenance, and finally to the Lifetime Maintenance phases of Atkins. Although there is no need to count calories, they do count. Gaining weight results from taking in more calories than you expend through exercise, thermogenesis (the body’s own heat production) and other metabolic functions. Research has shown that on a controlled carbohydrate program, more calories are burned than on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, so there is a certain metabolic advantage to the controlled carb approach. But understand that this does not give you a license to gorge.

If you are used to counting calories and it makes you uneasy to not do so, know that women usually can safely consume 1,800 calories a day and still lose weight; men can typically take in 2,000 calories, and in some cases more.

A little background on where 10x comes from
 

From the UCLA Student Health and Wellness Center:
RMR : There are many equations to estimate your total calorie needs based on your RMR and level of physical activity (NOTE: the thermic effect of food is usually not accounted for since its role is so minor). It is important to realize that all these equations are just estimates. You may need more or less depending on genetic differences in RMR and your body composition. Consult a qualified health professional for more information about your personal calorie needs.

Step 1: Estimate RMR
Men Healthy body weight x 11 calories
Women Healthy body weight x 10 calories

From Rice University :
First, basal metabolic calories (BMR kilocalories) can be approximately determined as body weight times 10 for women and body weight times 11 for men. This value is then multiplied by a factor for level of activity to determine activity kilocalories: 0.30 for inactive life styles to 0.75 for very active, strenuous lifestyles. Kilocalories needed for digestion are determined by adding BMR kilocalories + activity kilocalories and multiplying by 0.1.

Total kilocalories needed to maintain body weight are: BMR kilocalories + activity kilocalories + kilocalories needed for digestion

For example: Joanna weighs 123 pounds. To maintain her body weight under a strenuous regime of activity she needs BMR: 123 x 10= 1230 kcal + Activity kilocalories: 1230 x 0.75= 922.5 kcal + Digestion kilocalories: (1230+922.5) x 0.1= 215.25 kcal or a total of about 2367.75 kcal per day.

From Southern Illinois University
Basal Metabolism (BMR)

Energy required to maintain normal body functions while at rest
Energy to support: breathing, pumping blood, maintenance of body temperature, and other life-sustaining, ongoing functions

Ongoing functions account for 60 to 80% of a person's energy needs

To estimate calories for basal metabolism processes:
Men: Multiply body weight by 11
Women: Body weight x 10

From a Penn State Lecture "Digestion, Energy and Evaluation of Claims" :

Energy Out: Basal Metabolism
= minimum energy to live at rest
Men estimate: lbs body weight X 11
Women estimate: lbs body weight X 10
affected by
Muscle > Fat Male > Female
Young > Old Previous nutr. status
Temperature: body and environment

And just for the heck of it:
guideline
n 1 : guidance relative to setting standards or determining a course of action 2: a light line that is used in lettering to help align the letters 3: a rule or principle that provides guidance to appropriate behavior [syn: guidepost, rule of thumb]

rule of thumb
n. pl. rules of thumb
A useful principle having wide application but not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable in every situation.

Nat

Nat, none of your citations mention carb/fat
 

Nat, I have three graduate degrees, one a doctorate and I could come up with just as many experts as you have to buttress my beliefs -- my beliefs, not facts. All research is biased by the pre-existing beliefs held by the person(s) designing the research.

NONE of the sources you cite discuss any balance of fat to carbs. None of your sources mention ketosis. None of your citations indicate what does the body do when it doesn't get that basal minimum when it is in ketosis. Does the UCLA student manual recommend high fat/low carb? I bet it doesn't. I think you have taken a lot of facts out of context and you have failed to place those 'facts' within the contest of high fat diets, ketosis, etc.

I am pretty sure that the whole point of getting into ketosis is to get your body to burn fat when it needs energy to meet its basic energy needs. Without ketosis, the body turns first to carbs (which is why we avoid carbs) and then it turns to lean tissue. To avoid using lean tissue for energy, we eat fat to stay in ketosis. I am absolutely certain that as long as my body has 100 pounds of excess fat, it is not going into starvation mode when it needs energy and I haven't eaten 10X on any given day. It uses the fat. It's called weight loss.

It does not seem like a great leap in logic or scientific reasoning to posit the theory that when in ketosis, a body will use fat to meet its energy needs. I further theorize that when a human being does not eat enough calories to meet its minimum daily needs, the body burns fat if it is in ketosis.

The human organism is infinitely complex and each body differs from the next. No one single thing works for everyone.

On this forum, the 10X formula for high fat/low carb weight loss has become dogma when it is not in alignment with Dr. Atkins plan.

As far as the older version of Dr. Atkins, let us all remember that he has an additional thirty years experience since he wrote that. I don't really find any inconsistentcies with the quotes posted above and the latest DANDR.

I suggest that if you follow the 10X rule and it works for you, FANTASTIC, but it is not an Atkins diet.

10x has become dogma on this forum
 

It has gone way beyond being a guideline. People can't even question it in this thread without getting all that basal stuff brought up. If it were a guideline, people would not get bombarded with posts telling them to eat more.

This discussion is important, at least to me. One of the many reasons low carb is so appealing is that it not only does NOT require counting calories, it advises strongly against doing so.

I came to low carbing via Dr. Atkins book, which I first read in 1997. One point from Atkins that has always stuck in my mind is his statement about not counting calories. He says it is far easier to count up to 25 than to 1200. In other words, when following the Atkins plan, you only have to manage and count and be responsible for counting up to 25 or so little carb grams. No more tallying calories into the thousands, the way most of us were forced to do during our low-fat, Weight Watchers, Richard Simmons, SlimFast, Ornish, Susan Powder stop the insanity days. The mere discussion of calorie counting has prompted great debate here. It is easy to understand why, especially in light of the fact most of us spent years unsuccessfully attempting to control calories.

Dr. Schwarzbein, in her book, the Schwarzbein Principle, speaks to the issue of counting. On TSP, one merely counts the carb grams in starchy vegetables, fruits and allowed grains. There is to be no tallying and counting of anything else. Dr. S. believes counting calories and fat grams is part of the overall illness that causes nutrition and weight problems. I quote her from page 259 of TSP: Do not count calories, weigh food or count fat grams. Calculating and focusing on numbers causes an unhealthy obsession with food.

I got very very sick and terribly out of whack physically and mentally from counting calories and fat grams and all the rest. I refuse to count them ever again, whether it is to insure I am eating enough or too many. MDs who have written books and who have studied a lifetime about healthy LCing recommend against counting calories. None of them recommend counting them to insure one is eating enough.

Re: 10x has become dogma on this forum
 

Well, you've questioned it 6 times so far in this thread, and got nothing but informative, polite replies.

Please try to do the same.

Wa'il

Do you ever wonder where or when you learn something? This seems to have been the "10x calorie" week and it got me thinking - where did I pick up this piece of information? Because it's not something I knew prior to LCing when I tried living off of 1200 calories. I did some digging on the forum and I found my answer. I spent a lot of time searching around before I hit the register button last year:

10x current weight?
Exercise and calories: a question
Help again...Day 16 and still up 3 pounds
Stalled (really)


Isabel, the question was show me evidence that 10x is a guideline. I believe I have done that.

You are saying that 10x does not apply to ketogenic diets and you have the degrees to help you prove this. I invite you to do so. Please show me the evidence that the guidelines surrounding human biology are suspended when one is on a ketogenic diet.

Nat