(I apologize in advance for the INCREDIBLY long post, but this is something I've been wanting to discuss, in depth, for awhile...)

There are three factions of LCers when it comes to this issue.

1) Some people don't count calories at all and are convinced only carbs are important... these are the types who obsess about carbs in black pepper .
2) Then you have the balanced group: people that are roughly mindful of portions, but mainly are concerned with counting carbs.
3) Finally there is a third group of LCers, those who think calories are mainly important, and the importance of carbs begins and ends with not eating so much that your sugar metabolism becomes impaired via unstable sugars (increases hunger & calorie consumption)/high insulin (retards metabolic activity).

Personally, I fall into the third group. Though I definitely notice a correlation between both carbs and calories and my weight, I find that minding calories has a stronger influence than minding carbs. In other words, I lose faster when I am strictly minding my portions and loosely minding my carbs, than I am when I am strictly minding my carbs and loosely minding my portion sizes. I also find that eating slightly more carbs allows me to eat less total calories. This is because when I get the urge to snack, I can snack on really low calorie things at a higher carb level, whereas I can't do that on a lower carb level.

Anyway, it is my belief that calories are the most important factor in weight loss. I believe that the importance of carbohydrate intake begins and ends with not eating so much that you damage your metabolism (and it is very possible to do this by the way: ask people who are so insulin resistant that they can't even lose on starvation levels of high carb food). If you are one of those unfortunate people with a really damaged sugar metabolism, intake might have to be quite low for you to lose or maintain weight, unfortunately... Even still, I seriously doubt very many need to cling to the 20 gram limit that is falsely toted as magical. I believe very few people need to keep carbs at ketogenic levels to lose weight at a reasonable pace. Furthermore, I think staying in ketosis, needlessly, offers no extra benefits for it's price of limited low calorie-high nutrient snack and meal options.

I think people are losing sight of the big picture. It is important to remember what ketosis and induction are for. Ketosis and induction was considered important by Dr. Atkins because of its cleansing properties... it purged your body of the sugar and got you jump started physically (glycogen rapidly depleted, hormonal shift rapidly occurring) and mentally (fast weight loss) into the LC lifestyle. Ketosis and induction was not and was never considered that important for weight loss. There is really no reason that I can see to keep your carbohydrate grams so low, once you have been properly inducted and are "clean". The panacea that people believe extremely low ketogenic carbohydrate intakes to be, is in my experience and opinion, snake oil. Actually, it is worse than snake oil because this type of diet approach comes with a risk: low nutrients and high calories. Every day on this forum I see so many people are obviously stalling because they are snacking on high calorie/low nutrient foods like cream cheese and pork rinds. They are doing this because they think it will help them lose weight: they are trying to avoid raising their carbs above the 20 gram limit. This really irks me. These people could be snaking on carrots, lowering their calories, losing weight, and getting tons of antioxidants at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, I am not at all knocking LC. It totally saved my life, and I fully believe in the importance of controlling carbs for health and weight management. However, I do have a problem with the mindset some people have in which the goal is to be LOW carb, when the real goal should be to be CONTROLLED carb. These terms are used interchangeably by us, and I am guilty of it too, but really they don't mean the same thing. Controlling your carbs is about eating as many nutritious carbs as you can tolerate, without damaging your metabolism. Low carb means you are eating very few carbohydrates, even when your body can tolerate more. Low carb is about mindlessly adhering to flimsy "20 gram limits" for no reason at all and never questioning why. Controlled carb is about experimenting with your body, discovering what you can and can not handle, and making intelligent choices.

Anyway I guess thats the problem I have; so many sell their bodies short with these programs. They hear low carb works, arbitrarily follow the induction phase of Atkins and see results... but then they never bother to try and progress past that point. They never bother to read about the science, the reasons why it works, so they are uneducated and in a poor position to make intelligent choices about their diet.
The result of it all is this new superstitious belief in the magic of induction and the "20 gram" limit. The reason it came about is simple; once the dieter sees results (i.e. HEY on induction I am losing gobs of weight and am not hungry!), he stops trying new things and sticks to what works. Even though it is true that induction is a step up from his old flour and sugar rich diet, what he doesn't realize is adding back even more low glycemic - high nutrient foods such as berries and veggies would be even better than induction! He doesn't realize this, because he is uneducated about the principles behind low carbing. The 20 carb limit and ketosis becomes mythologically linked to instant weight loss in his mind, and it is really a false association.

In a way I really wish all these low carb plans would omit their equivalent of the "induction" phase. I know they are a good selling point for the diet because you lose water so fast when you first start the induction, and fast weight loss is a big promotion for the plan, but really all it does is help promote a superstitious crash dieting mentality. It does the dieter no good in the long term. The thing that bothers me the most is that this selling point isn't even NEEDED, because low carb is a scientifically valid and rewarding approach on its own.

I guess the way I feel can be summed up in a sentence. Keep your blood sugars normal and on an even keel, eat a nutrient rich diet, and you will see normalized hunger and good metabolic integrity. It has nothing to do with induction or ketosis, they aren't important at all. Assuming your blood sugars are stable and your sugar metabolism isn't going haywire, there is no reason to obsess over carbs, you would be better served watching portion sizes if you are stalled.

Where do you stand on this issue?

Hi Woo,

I'm in the 3rd group - I really find reducing calories affects my weight loss much more than reducing carbs - I've given up trying very low carb diets for a couple of reasons - a. I don't lose on them and ... b. I get very hungry on them and end up eating many more calories than I would otherwise. What I do now is watch the carbs I do eat are low GI (most of the time ) and high fibre.




Exactly, and how about the opposite sometimes I get so frustrated reading posts - where people are drinking oil or eating spoonfuls of butter - to RAISE their calories for the day. I think this idea about "starvation mode" setting in is highly exaggerated it dosen't happen unless you have very low intake for a continued period of time - and it's pretty hard to maintain a really low calorie intake when doing Atkins and other LC plans(since most of the proteins are pretty calorie dense) .



even if you're not - even if you could eat 2lbs of steak at one meal and not gain weight, dosen't mean you should I think that diets that try to tell you, you can eat all you want of things are very bad for people who have problems like compulsive eating - it dosen't help the root of the problem.

I would say I am in group 2. I count my carbs I have never counted my calories. I started atkins after being a vegetarian for 10 years. I only added seafood and boneless skinless chicken back to my diet. ( I have actually since dropped the chicken back out I just couldn't do it anymore as it was making me sick trying to eat it) After being a veggie though I have to say I enjoy my vegetables raw or steamed. I am not afraid in the least to use oil but I could never imagine buttering every veggie I eat just for the sake of jacking up my fats for the sake of a diet. (I don't restrict them though either) Having said that, my calorie intake is probably less than the typical Atkins person.

I was really careful to increase my carbs right after induction cause I felt it was really important to have more fruits and vegetables and nuts in my diet than what was allowed in the first phase. (although for me after being so carb dependant I do think I for one NEEDED that induction to kick the addiction) I read the book and understood that the induction was not meant to be the longterm diet. I recently found out I was pregnant and switched straight to maint. phase. Even before I switched to maintenance I was already at around 50 or so carbs a day and losing slowly still.

I too worry about others doing the diet though I see the crash diet mentality and the mindset that you can't ever consume over 20 carbs a day. I know I actually have family members that still have not increased carbs to 20 a day and they have been doing Atkins for way longer than me and have reached goal weights. They eat cakes, ice cream, pasta, rice and anything else that strikes them on the weekends and use the under 20 a day during the week to 'balance' the weekend splurges. It really worries me. I have said something to them about how they should be consuming at least 50 or so carbs a day if not more at this point and they just laugh and say wow we don't even eat that during the week.

Its good to see others are concerned about people doing the same type things. Whether its the weekend splurges that get you or the gallons of butter in a week it seems that extreme is never a good choice. Everything in moderation!

that was refreshing to read! I am definitely group 3. I find the mythos around ketosis and the carb nitpicking ridiculous. Also the idea of starvation mode...I'm sure most peole needing to lose a significant amount of weight are NOT going slip into starvation mode if they lower their calories below the usual 10-12 times body weight. It would probably be a good thing if some people ate a little less than that. The U.S. media has created highly exaggerated notions of what a proper serving is, and it is way too big. I've BEEN in starvation mode before, and trust me, it (1.) was NOT that easy to get into and (2.) took a lot of hard work and preoccupation to maintain.

Eating healthfully low carb has helped me lose weight, and gain a great insight into the ways our bodies work, with regards to health. But the bottom line for losing weight will ALWAYS be that we must take in less food.

I'm in the group 2 camp, because while I try to eat only until satisfied, and I do believe that portion sizes matter, I don't agree with the absolute supremacy of calorie math.

This is partly the result of my own personal experience, since I switched to Atkins after a year of strict low-calorie dieting. I lost 25 lbs during that year, eating 1200-1400 calories a day, and had stopped losing weight altogether and even put back a pound or two. When I switched to Atkins, I kept track of my calorie intake, but didn't really restrict it other than not overstuffing myself or snacking between meals. I've averaged pretty much between 1800-2100 calories the whole time I've been on Atkins, considerably higher than my previous low-cal intake, but I lost weight much, much faster -- 30 lbs in 3 months, at the beginning. I still eat about that many calories, even at my current weight, and am actually still losing very slowly. I exercise almost daily for 30 minutes of cardio or an hour of weights, but I'm not a marathon runner; my job (computer programming) is completely sedentary, and I work from home, so I don't even get the minimal exercise that walking around a large office building provides. Nor do I have some kind of magic hyperactive metabolism -- I've been overweight most of my life, managed to get up to 210 lbs, and lost relatively slowly on my previous diet. I'm also not massively insulin-resistant, as evidenced by the fact that I lost steadily and well at a relatively high carb level (35-50g).

The only explanation that makes sense is that there is something unique about Atkins that works particularly well for me and has allowed me to lose more weight than my caloric input/expenditure would predict. If you look at my initial loss, there's NO WAY to account for it with calorie math alone. 30 lbs in 3 months works out to a constant 1200-calorie deficit EVERY DAY for 90 days; I wasn't exercising at all at the time and had the same lifestyle activitity as now, so every bit of that loss came from my diet, and there are only a couple potential explanations. If my maintenance caloric level was 3000 calories a day (e.g. 1200 above my intake), I should have been losing even faster on low-cal (not to mention that that's a ridiculously high # maintenance level of calories for someone at my former weight). It's equally unlikely that I was just eating a lot less than I thought, at least enough less to explain that huge sustained deficit; I'm scientifically minded and pretty competent with a food scale, and would stake my life that I wasn't overestimating my calorie intake by more than 100 or so calories a day, not enough to explain that loss. I'm also pretty confident that the majority of that loss was fat, not muscle or water, because I also dropped a bunch of inches and went from a tight 16 to a loose 12. So yes, I'm skeptical when I see someone say it's primarily or exclusively about the calories, because I can't come up with any logical way to reconcile that with the facts of my experience. Clearly, there was some other factor at work, and Occam's razor says it's got to be the carbs, since that was the only thing I changed.

I agree with you that there's a lot of nonsense being spouted about ketosis and induction, and I'm not claiming that calories are completely irrelevant. I've been known to say the same thing about wishing Dr. Atkins had just skipped the "induction" bit, and I've never even tested myself for ketosis. In fact, I'll even go you one better and say that I wish DANDR focused more heavily on the glycemic index than on sticking to a magic carb level, because 20g of veggies is totally different from 20g of splenda and cream and cheese. However, I do think there's more importance to (low-GI) carbs than merely healing a damaged insulin mechanism, and that the calorie theory has some serious flaws in it. It's an insufficient explanation for people who are really successful with Atkins, and that implies that it's also an insufficient explanation for people who really struggle as well.

I am in group 2, and I know that a lot of people end up having to keep an eye on calories, though I really only count carbs. I have found for me that I do not lose unless I keep my calories up around 1500 or more. OTOH, I have never had a very big appetite. I imagine if I did, I would have to work at keeping my calories down, not up.

I just don't agree that it's all about calories. The fact is that carbs do affect the insulin response, which controls fat storage. Of course calories count to some extent, and Dr. A himself said that as you get closer to your goal and add in more carbs, you have to be more conscious of controlling your caloric intake because the appetite isn't as suppressed as in induction.

I'm definitely in #2 group. I'd say judging from what I've heard some people eat, their metabolism does something magical on this diet and they can lose incredible pounds while eating calories that would cause me to explode. Like that family that lost 500+ pounds, the guy was eating incredible amounts of food.

My last lengthy stall I got serious about recording my intake and cut back on my carbs a bit. They were getting up into the 40-50 a day, calories were under 2000, often 1500-ish. And I was stalled for a couple of months.

So I cut back the carbs, which increased my fat intake, and I lost those 3 pounds that I kept yo-yoing on and off.

I envy the folks that don't have to watch the calories, but that just isn't me! However, watching calories has never been so easy as it has been on a low carb diet.

i'm a group 2 as well--
Elsah, I'm kind of like u--i've been a vegetarian nearly my entire life and so did Atkins by introducing eggs, fish, chicken, turkey, and tofu. I now really like the meat, but love my veggies and that's where i get most of my carbs from. I never really ate high carb before (don't care for sweets much) and was fairly low calorie. On atkins though, i also found that I lost more when I upped calories. I've been trying to eat healthier now though by reducing portions and incorporating more veggies/fiber rich foods like hot cereal. Also, i'm trying to get away from so much cheese, mayo, and butter although i'm keeping the olive oils in (but in moderation, still). My problem is that i don't really know what a good level of calories is for me-- if i go too low, i start binging more because i realized how little i had eaten rather than because i was hungry. i have to admit, i'm still a bit afraid of re-introducing carbs cause i'm eating soo many more cals a day and i feel that weight is definitely a balance of both. besides, its a lot easier to maintian low carb than low cal for me because of the binging problem.

calories definitely matter for me, in fact, I was just thinking about this and how I don't know if I am willling to eat below 1800 to lose, or just stay where I am, as I have lost a size and a lot of inches, but no actual weight. The difference with eating low carb for me is that if I eat 1800 calories with pasta, white rice, etc. I am still hungry and have massive cravings. With protein and including controlled low gi carbs I can manage keeping my eating under control (discounting pms, of course )

For me, the question doesn't matter. I have been unsuccessful at controlling my calories, but by controlling my carbs, I've lost weight at higher calorie counts. In addition, cravings disappear with the expulsion of carbs and that does lower the calorie count to a degree

Trustycat I soooooooooooo envy you. I get so upset sometimes. I wish I could get over the mental block and eat meat and love it. It sure would make my life easier!! I was like you, never a big sweets person really. I mean fruit muffins and breads were typically a dessert to me. (That and my favorite chocolate tofu pie recipe *drool*) But man did I pack in my pasta, rice and bread at every meal. I think the main thing I can see that has changed in my diet (other than the seafood of course) is the fact that I am actually eating protein with every meal/snack. Before I would go days without proteins since I rarely ate dairy. I used egg replacer in everything I could to not touch an egg and well honestly you can just eat so many beans in a week! I like the dairy now although I could never drink a glass of the stuff. I always use soymilk when I have to taste the 'milk' but cheese is good stuff!!!

Interesting thread. I have been in the group 2. I personally don't think eating a pound of bacon or steak with butter every day is a good thing. I do try to be mindful of portion control, though on occasion I'm mindful of the fact that I'm going back for "legal" seconds! I think that there are healthier choices within our WOE, and it is a good point that carb count doesn't necessarily equal a wise nutritional choice. I eat a good bit of chicken and I've probably been eating OWL or PM levels of fruits and veggies because of the nutritional values. I do snack on cheese and pork skins when I need something salty, but I will also snack by eating celery, almonds, or a spoonful of crunchy peanut butter.

I'm a firm believer that you have to make this WOE livable, or you won't stick to it. So that means the occasional glasses of wine, bites of dessert, and the occasional RS LC chocolate is a good thing. But the whole point is to not only lose the weight but to be healthy and sustain the weightloss. What I found when I was really strict is that I wasn't as happy as I am with having a more modified LC diet. I'm still very careful about the glycemic index. I've also introduced eating 1/4 cup of oatmeal about once or twice a week because of its health benefits. So...I guess while I generally follow Atkins, I've tweaked it a bit to suit me. But hey, it seems to be working, and I guess that is what is really important!

Interesting read. Nice post, Woo.

I think it's important to keep the learning curve in mind. Most people go through all of those stages. Most of us have issues with food that go beyond weight, so more often than not, this is a long, difficult adjustment. If a food addict needs those pork rinds and cream cheese to start making the adjustment, so be it. I have yet to see a newbie who puts down their copy of DANDR and starts low carbing by grinding their own flax seeds, cooking with organic coconut oil, etc etc.

I disagree slightly on the ketosis issue, too. I'm in maintenance, and the closer I am to ketosis, the better I feel. This doesn't mean 20 g of carbs per day - it's more like 50-60. I'm in a keto phase right now. I'm in a fantastic mood and I just finished a 45 minute marathon of cleaning my apartment. THAT doesn't happen very often!

Truthfully - and I discovered this with a breif stint on Fat Flush - I'd rather count carbs. When I count carbs and keep them fairly low, I'm invariably satisfied. When I up the carbs a bit and count calories, I'm invariably hungry. Not good. I eat nutritious food in both circumstances, but which one do you think I can live with long term?

I don't think it really matters which camp you're in, as long as you're sticking to your plan and doing it properly, which generally includes veggies and variety. You can stay at low carb levels and still get fantastic nutrition. Likewise, if you choose to go the higher carb route, the price is that you have to pay more attention to calories. This is especially true as you approach goal. Note that myself included, nine people that have posted here are 150 lbs or less.

Whichever approach you take, it all comes down to dedication to learning - about your plan, general nutrition, and your own body.

Elsah-- wow, we have so much in common! I was the same way-- lots of breads, esp those with fruits/nuts, loved tofu with sugar and cinnamon as a desert.... omg, would eat entire boxes of cereals such as all-bran or specialK and loved it! I too didn't eat eggs or cheese or dairy and would often go days without protein as well. i love that now I get adequate amounts of protein, although i'm trying to cut back on my cheese intake to be a bit healthier.

My cheese of choice is feta and ricotta in the second place. But with being pregnant feta is now looking like a no-no. Makes me wanna cry knowing I have to go until september without my favorite cheese! I still don't eat cheese too often but I really enjoy it when I do eat it. Guess i'll have to find something to replace the feta. Any ideas??