Well whad'ya know... I step away for a day to play golf and I miss a good bundle (schoolyard slang for fight).

This thread started with Calories and would like to return for a moment. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with bath water in our condemnation of calorie theory and lusty defense of low carbohydrate diets.

Quote from Atkins

"I don't encorage you to stuff yourself. Calories are not a major consideration on this diet,but I have known dieters who have lost weight very slowly, indeed, because they persisted in regarding my no hunger promise as an invitation to eat untill they could hardly walk"

Other low carb writers also, despite their "never count calories again" slogans also concede the overeating point as perhaps the runner up to carbohydrate as the the leading causes of slow weight loss.

We ourselves often refer to "minimum calories to consume" to counter the starvation problem. But neither should we claim that low carb diets are "all-you-can-eat diets"

Atkins again

"On a low carbohydrate diet your appetite will tend to be more moderate. Take advantage of that, and you'll lose weight more easily."

The Eades go further. They say that too much food is the second most common reason for slow weight loss and plateaus. They too advocate portion control. They also suggest that, as fat grams have more calories, and providing that the protein level is as they recommend - high , nd the carbohydrate level is - low , then and only then should you reduce the calories- by lowering the fat. A fat gram has 9 calories and protein and carbohydrate have four. In this lower fat context the Eades would reduce dairy and nuts to lower the calorific content of the diet.


So Calories are part of the story. If they were the whole story, then I would be at weightwatchers.

I thought that I might come in directly to the point here and not sideways like a lobster ( can't spell crab)