I know this has bound to of been discussed many times before here, but I am new to this forum and haven't read much here on it.

The book says that there is a metabolic advantage to eating a diet high in fat and low in carbs, but many here advocate a calorie restricted diet, meaning eating fewer calories a day than the body uses.

Doesn't it being calorie restricted make it like any other diet where you have to eat fewer calories in order to lose weight?....or do ones who restrict their calories feel that they lose more eating a low carb/high fat 1500 calories verses a low fat/high carb 1500 calories?

I realize that there is also the advantage here of this WOE decreasing the appetite and making it easier to take in fewer calories and this is important, but I just want to know if anyone here feels that this WOE allows them to take in more calories than other diets while still losing weight.

I hope everyone can understand what I am asking here, its not that easy putting it in words....I am just a few days past Induction, but still staying at Induction level for now and I am trying to decide what things to try to maximize my own weight loss.

On fitday, my own fat percentages for the day have been 77-84%....carbs around 3% and the rest protein....my calories between 1400-2400.

It seems like most of the members on this forum are either (1) consciously trying to restrict calories, or (2) trying to get their calories up because their appetite is suppressed. I am in the distinct minority of people who would like to eat less calories, but aren't trying that hard! I guess it's because the lowfat diet I went on years ago left a sour taste in my mouth -- I always felt deprived. One of the things that attracted me to Atkins was that one didn't have to eat a low calorie diet -- I want something I can stick with for the rest of my life, and I love food too much to count every calorie and stop eating when I've gone over my "limit". I probably eat between 2000-2500 calories a day, although my protein-fat-carb ratios are right on target. I'm losing weight slowly, like a pound every few weeks. Could I lose faster if I ate less? Probably. But in the long run it's not worth it. I don't want to cut my calories, only to gain weight again when I up my intake.

This WOE is different for everyone as is any other. I personally cannot lose weight eating lowfat high carb. I have tried this hardly eating anything and only stayed at that weight without losing.

I have found that I am hypogylcemic which plays a role in what I can eat and can't eat. This WOE works for me, but I do have to also watch calorie intake and exercise in order to lose weight.

In the past I have starved myself and yo yo dieted so I am sure I have screwed up my metabolism. When I was in my 20's I could take off 10 lbs in a week. Now it looks like its going to be 3 lbs at the most. My calorie intake cannot be over 1400 or I stall or gain. Just the way I am but I am also only 5'2", so 10 lbs gone on me makes a big difference.

Some people here have much to lose some have alot less. I think if you have more to lose you can consume more calories at the begining but as you reach goal I bet people consume less calories. I haven't looked at too many journals yet or fitday journals but it makes sense. On the other hand, if you are excersising and didn't excersise before this WOE then you are increasing your metabolism and you could eat more calories, because you burn more.

This will be an interesting thread to keep an eye on.

I can't wait to read the rest of the threads on this.

Hi - I think everyone decides for themselves what is best. I do personally think that eating this way has made me more aware of the impact of food on my system i.e. I can tell more now when something affects me. I chose to monitor my calories to see if it would make a difference in how fast I could lose and it did. Still not as fast as low cal low fat, but I am not going back to that. I know that for me, based on my resting metabolic rate I can eat 1800 calories a day and lose about one pound a week. I choose to eat a little less (averaging 1600-1700) to lose a littl e more but I eat fat etc. My numbers are not in the 70% range of fat, but never dip below 60%. I eat between 25-30 carbs a day, getting them vegetables and berries which is how I keep the calories lower.

For me, for now I have decided I will not try to lose faster, even though I know I could. But I also don't want to take four years to achieve a healthy weight.

PecanPie

I can say that on very low cal diets they didnt work well for me. I am also very insulin resistant and so my body wasnt working as well as it should have.

I could GAIN weight while starving myself at 1200 calories a day or less and now at 1200-1400 I am losing weight.

I still need to restrict my calories to lose, but at least I am not on 500 calories a day starving myself. The reason I need to restrict though is partially because of my PCOS and insulin resistance and partially because I have been through so many diets I wrecked my metabolism and its taking a long time to heal, and I will need lower calories to lose now.

I do think there is an advantage to insulin resistant people and I do think this is a much healthier way of eating overall and its always an advantage to be eating better.

After doing the gamut of low-fat diets I finally just gave up because there's two things I can't abide: 1. Being hungry; 2. Low-fat/Low-protein. I, too, am hypoglycemic, so when I eat carbs (like in a low-fat diet) my blood sugar spikes then plunges, making me way hungrier yet.

Yes, I find I can eat a lot more on Atkins and lose weight (well, at least until I quit losing a couple of months ago--am back to losing now). Previously I would eat around 1200 calories a day and maybe take off a pound or two a week in a good week. I can now eat close to 2,000 calories a day and sometimes lose as much as 3-4 pounds a week. Considering my height, weight and activity level, there's no way a simple calorie deficit would create that kind of weight loss. Nifty, huh?

Well, they did a experiment recently and found that it was pretty tiny. Like a couple dozen calories per day. Maybe the experiment was faulty. It'd be nice to see it repeated and modified.

Personally, I don't think there's much of a metabolic advantage for me. I pretty much lose weight too slowly to notice it if my calories get up around 1600 or more. The magic in the diet is that it helps me keep my hunger in check so I can lower my calories.

The responses so far are pretty much what I had gathered from reading posts here for the past few weeks.... for some there is a metabolic advantage, perhaps even for all, even if its small....but it seems most have to control the amount of calories they eat in order to lose weight at even the 1 pound a week rate.

So far I have found that this WOE has made me have a less ravenous appetite and that helps a lot....but from reading the book I thought that if I stayed low on carbs and high on fat, not too high on the protein..then I'd drop weight really well regardless of the amount of calories I took in... from reading what others at the this site have to say I see that this only seems to be true for a choice few....I am not sure that I will be one of them... I lost 10 pounds in less than 2 weeks, but then TOM came to visit and while I didn't gain for it as I usually do, I have still to lose anymore now that it is almost over.

Nancy

Are you referring to the experiment where they locked 2 twin men in different identical rooms for 24 hours and monitored everything?

The reason I ask is that when I read that, right off I seen a major flaw.... the advantage is not supposed to show up within just 24 hours.... it takes at least a few days for the body to start burning fat that way.

If you seen a different study of if I misunderstood the one I read then could you give me a link to read what you are referring to?

Don't worry about it too much. I usually don't gain much on TOM, but this last time I bloated like a dead toad! It took days afterward to get back down to the weight I was before it started, then today I see I'm down even more.

I think the "metabolic advantage" which kicks in during induction helps many people to jump start their metabolism. I'm betting many people looking to atkins have tried many diets and failed, messing up the metabolism. The (almost) abscence of carbs heals that, and enables the body to work as it is supposed to while losing weight (metabolize fat.) I don't think the metabolic advantage ideal was ever meant to be a complete substitute for a calorie deficit. To lose weight, on ANY diet, ever, one must take in less energy than they expend. This doesn't mean we have to go hungry, or slip into starvation mode, etc. etc. It is simply the way the body works. There isn't any way around it. Some people can lose weight on higher # of calories, and some pople have to lower them until they find their body's true satiation point. I think that is a major point- we have to figure out what our true hunger is, and not go above it.

This is such an interesting question and one for which their are no real answers yet. I don't think enough studies have been done to demonstrate metabolic advantages.

For myself, I do think this WOE has sped up my metabolism. I can eat more calories and still lose weight than I can with low-calorie diets. But after reading and talking with lots of people on the forum, it appears to me that this metabolic advantage does not last forever. Like the body gets used to it at some point and adjusts.

In DANDR, Atkins talks a lot about "portion control". Eating till you are full and then stopping. Really, that is caloric control just using different words. I don't think I would have gotten fat if I did that! But maybe I would have.

I do think that sugar, starch, and grains effect me in a very bad way. I used to have terrible digestive problems and drank alka seltzer every morning for breakfast. I was always sick in my stomach. With this WOE, that has completely gone away. I had IBS years ago and it has never come back with low-carbing. So I do think that Atkins was right about some of the problems with carbs and high carb diets.

Maybe we just lose weight because the fat fills us up so we eat less. That may be all that is going on. But it sure is great compared to all the low-calorie diets I have been on and was always hungry, sick, and grouchy. Maybe low-carbing will work for many people because they can diet and feel good.

Thanks for the post
Orchid

The one I read was longer than 24 hours. It was 3-5 days, something like that. It was still quite short. But it'd be pretty hard to lock someone up in a metabolic chamber for months on end! I think if you look in the media section here you'll find some references to it.

Nancy

3-5 days wouldn't be long enough even to know for sure about a metabolic advantage.... some do not enter ketosis within 3 days...if it was 5 days it would have been a little better... but I think the study needs to be done on more people in order to know for sure.

I remember in the book Dr. Atkins talked about some men who ate around 5,000 calories a day very high fat and still lost weight and I always felt that was too good to be true, although on this WOE I want no where near 5,000 calories a day...lol

What about that recent study they did with two entire groups of people, to whom a restaurant catered? I think this was funded by the Atkins center but can't remember for sure. I know one group was LC and the other LF. The LC group was given 300 calories more per day than the LF group and if memory serves, the LC folks lost weight faster.