Okay.......I like this. It's going to take me a moment to respond to Woo, she's made some really valid points here, but I'm going to try my hardest.

Consumed sugar is the first thing to be broken down into "glucose" and used by the body for energy. Sugar may not technically be a seperate form of energy but we do burn that first before the carbs whether it's in the form of pure table sugar, added sugar in carbohydrate foods or naturally occuring sugar in carbohydrates, which is where the "sugar rush" comes from.


I agree with everything you stated here and do take it into account in my diet. Good point!!


I agree with the your statement completely that anything in excess will be eventually stored as fat.......carbs and fats alike. But I don't believe I'm advocating a excessive consumption of fat. To explain.....I need 2700 calories a day to maintain my weight. My example I believe advocated eating roughly 1800-2300 calories per day with an average of 70% of those being fat. So I actually do agree with you and don't believe my hypothesis contradicts your statements as it does not advocate an excessive consumption of calories, but rather an increase in fat calories.


I can admit that it sure sounds like a myth, but the only problem I have with that statement is that Atkinsers everywhere keep proving that wrong, proving that it is not a myth. I don't think though that "fat storing is likewise impossible on low carb", but I think it is a lot harder especially when your body is using all the calories it eats and then moving onto your fat stores for additional energy it needs. There is no way that all these people can be losing this kind of weight if my theory is invalid. They should all be gaining. My best example would be an overweight individual with 80 or more pounds to lose. Many of these people are in the habit of consuming large quantities of food in the form of periodic daily binges due to carbohydrate "addictions/allergies". Therefore, when they move over to the Atkins woe they continue to consume large amounts of food, equaling large quantities of calories mostly made up of fat (due to the lack of carbs allowed) and they lose at an almost "alarming" rate. I believe too that most of us when we start out on Atkins deal with such a horrible amount of cravings from our previous sugar/carb addictions that we on the average consume more calories than our "suggested" amount in our diligent attempts to stick with the Atkins woe, and yet we still lose weight also at a very steady rate.


I think this is good support of my theory. My question for you now is, does the calorie need decrease with this change in energy derived from the external environment or does that decrease in calories actually promote your body to once again store because it believes that due to the external calorie reduction it may once again be put into starvation mode??? In other words, because you reduce your hunger and suddenly start burning stored fat, does that mean you really don't need the external calorie minimum that you previously needed or does it really mean that you must maintain that calorie minimum (as hard is it may sometimes be) in an effort to continue this fat burning state which is why you went into the fat burning state in the first place. Doesn't changing that up change the state of fat store burning and isn't that why Atkins advocated adding carbs back into your diet slowly (which in turn means reducing your fat intake) as you begin to reach goal, so that you will stop losing weight? Or are you stating that I could put myself into that state of internal fat burning by initially increasing my fat calories while subsequently reducing my carb calories and then stay in the fat burning state after my apetite drops and I lower my calories even more.


I won't even try to address the protein issue and embarrass (sp?) myself like that, as I stated before I know protiens form a lot of essential functions long before it does any of the fat storage stuff. Thank you for the additional info on it though.

I think that's just it. "People on this forum are eating no where near that amount of calories without losing weight rapidly". I'm stating they aren't eating enough. I'm advocating that they should not decrease their calories by less than 800 calories below their metabolice + activity rate and yet most of them are 1200-1500 calories below it on an average day and find they must drop even more to lose weight again.

Gotta come back to this later........gotta go spend Mom's day with the family.

This is the key really, isn't it? Learning to listen to our bodies again? In my experience thus far, low carb eating breaks that vicious cycle of murderous sugar and starch cravings leading to more murderous sugar and starch cravings. And that certainly is a BIG help when it comes to emotional eating. But it doesn't fix everything, does it?

We have to do the work and break those emotional ties to food too. Of course we can overeat on a lowcarb diet. It only stands to reason that it won't matter, in terms of gaining weight, if you're reaching for another drumstick or another cookie, once your body has surpassed it's energy needs.

The thing that's sooo great about this lowcarb deal, for me anyway, is that I can now separate my emotional, and or habitual, cravings for food from the real deal of being hungry. And now that I'm off the sugar and starch I see that it was the sugar and starch highs and lows that were making me even more of an emotional eater than I would otherwise be. It really is such a vicious cycle. And it's so great not feel like I could just about roll someone into an alley to steal their box of Dunkin' Donuts for a sugar/starch fix.

So now when the thought that I want to eat flashes through my head I can take pause and ask myself if I'm really hungry or if I'm just wanting to eat for the sake of eating. That is no small thing. It's also not something that would hold at all true if I were on a lowfat diet.

Three ounces of steak, potato without butter, and a small salad with lemon juice? No thanks. I know where that'll lead me.

Great thread, you guys. Thanks.

I do have a question for you though, Woo. Regarding listening to your body and only eating when you're hungry. One hears so much about how meals shouldn't be skipped. What are your thoughts on whether or not we really need to be on some sort of breakfast lunch and dinner schedule? Or even on a more modern and updated schedule of eating 5 or 6 smaller meals a day?

I am not hungry in the mornings. I'm up between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m. and I'm just not usually hungry until around midday. I drink my water, usually 48 oz. of water before I hit 11:00 a.m. And I'll cop to drinking usually two cups of, lite on the caffeine, coffee. I mix decaf with 1/2 the caffeine coffee. So I'm drinking 1/4 the caffeine that would be in a regular cup of coffee.

Do folks think I'm doing myself a disservice here by not making breakfast the most important meal of the day? Is being up and about for six or so hours without eating undermining my ability to lose weight efficiently? Should I be going ahead and eating breakfast even though I'm not hungry?

can someone sum up what was said here? my head hurts from just seeing the first post hehe... does refeeding basically bump up our metabolisms so we could lose faster after the refeed? yepyep, gotta eat fat to lose fat... but be careful not to go overboard on the fat since fat contains a lot of calories in such a small serving... there should still be a limit to fat-intake, it shouldn't be unlimited

Yeah, this is fasinating, but over my head. Could I ask for poisonivy and wooo to sum up their positions and specifically what they think is the best way to lose weight on low carb: how many calories, how much fat percentage and how much carb.

I don't think we have any metabolic scientists reading this message forum, so what you're probably hearing is lay people, with varying levels of expertise in the area, trying to apply their understanding of their own perceptions of how their body is reacting to a low carb diet.

But the truth is, we're all reacting very differently and we all have very different environments and physiologies, I think you really just need to fumble around with carbs/calories fat/protein etc until you find yourself losing weight.

As far as using Fitday's numbers for your metabolism... I wouldn't. In my case they were WAY off. Far, far too high. I think that's just another one of those things that is highly individual.

ItsTheWoo said Right. I was aware of that. I was trying to point out that the math was wrong. And I was worried that someone might read the post, dramatically increase their calorie consumption, and run into problems. I didn't make that clear. But it got me thinking and I've done some research.

Following are some excerpts (in red) from Bettelheim, Brown, & March, Introduction to General, Organic, and Biochemistry, 6th ed, 2001. I'm going to summarize metabolism of carbs, fats, and proteins below, hopefully in a manner everyone can understand, and maybe clarify the metabolic advantage concept of low carb diets. Also keep in mind that "energy" used by the cell is in the form of ATP molecules, which are utilized in the mitochondria. All ATP is the same, whether it comes form carbs or fats.

Here is a link to the mentioned textbook.
http://www.brookscole.com/cgi-brook...pline_number=12

"To convert these compounds to energy [carbs, lipids, proteins], the body uses a different pathway for each type of compound. However, all these diverse pathways converge to one common catabolic pathway."

Lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates alike are broken down into small "chunks" containing 2 and 4 carbons before they enter the citric acid cycle (aka the Krebs cycle) and the electron transport chain to make ATP. So we are interested in how much energy is yielded from each type of molecule.

Carbohydrates (whether they be disaccharides - simple sugars - or polysaccharides like starch) are broken down into monosaccharides (glucose, etc.). Glycogen (also a carbohydrate) is also broken down in the same way. This pathway is glycolysis.

Lipids are broken down into glycerol (aka glycerine) and fatty acids, and sometimes into monoglycerides. These small molecules are then oxidized to produce energy. "The specific pathway by which energy is extracted from glycerol involves the same glycolysis pathway as that used for carbohydrates." Cells use beta-oxidation to break down fatty acids and produce energy.

"[Amino acids] serve as building blocks for proteins as needed and, to a smaller extent (expecially during starvation), as a fuel for energy. In the latter case, the nitrogen of the amino acids is catabolized through oxidative deamination and the urea cycle and is expelled from the body as urea in the urine. The carbon skeletons of the amino acids enter the common catabolic pathway either as alpha-keto acids or as acetyl coenzyme A."

Now I'm going to attempt to compare the energy yield from each type of molecule. Energy yeild is through the number of molecules of ATP produced from each building block (refer to chapter 27 in the mentioned textbook).

Glucose metabolism yields 36 ATP molecules from one molecule of glucose, or 6 per carbon.

Catabolism of glycerol yields 20 ATP from each glycerol molecule, or 6.7 per carbon.

Fatty acids are long-chain carboxylic acids (similar to acetic acid, citric acid, etc.), but with more carbons, usually between 10 and 20 per molecule. These are broken down into 2-carbon "chunks". Stearic acid, a typical fatty acid produces 146 ATP molecules, or 8.1 per carbon.

The combined ATP yield of both glycerol and fatty acids result in the increased caloric value of fats. A typical fat molecule has one glycerol and three fatty acid chains.

There are 20 different amino acids which can be modified to enter the citric acid cycle. I did not find a "per carbon" or "per molecule" yield for ATP for these in my resource book.

So, more energy is yielded per carbon from molecules of lipids (fats).

However, utilization of glucose is preferred by the body. When it is not available, fatty acids are used. Glucose is broken down into pyruvate, and then into acetyl CoA which enters the citric acid cycle. Through a series of steps oxaloacetate is made, which then reacts with the "next" acetyl CoA molecule entering the cycle. Oxaloacetate is required for the citric acid cycle to continue cycling. "What has happened in the entire process [the citric acid cycle] is that the original two acetyl carbons of acetyl CoA were added to the C4 oxaloacetate to produce a C6 unit, which then lost two carbons in the form of CO2, to produce, at the end of the process, the C4 unit oxaloacetate. The net effect is the conversion of the two acetyl carbons of acetyl CoA to two molecules of carbon dioxide."

Here is a graphical link to metabolism for extra info. http://www.pantethine.info/whatis/chemistry.php

The 2-carbon fragments produced from fatty acid metabolism are also acetyl CoA. These enter the citric acid cycle. "Unfortunately, low glucose supply also slows down the citric acid cycle. This happens because oxaloacetate is produced from the carboxylation of pyruvate. This oxaloacetate normally enters the citric acid cycle where it is essential for the continuous operation of the cycle. But if there is no glucose, there will be no glycolysis, no pyruvate formation, and therefore no oxaloacete production." BUT... not all of the acetyl CoA is used in the citric acid cycle. I believe this is where the metabolic advantage comes in, not through any more "calories" being needed to metabolize lipids over carbs.

The excess acetyl CoA are made into "ketone bodies" (ketone bodies include acetone, acetoacetate, and beta-hydroxybutyrate) and sent into the bloodstream by the liver. Cells use them in the common catabolic pathway to produce energy by muscle cells and neurons.

SUMMARY: Lipids produce more energy in the body than carbs or proteins, even considering the different metabolic pathways they must use to be broken down into the molecules used in the common catabolic pathway. But not all the lipids consumed in a low carb diet are able to enter the common metabolic pathway, thus the metabolic advantage.


I really hope this helps!

Joan

I am not sure about all this but a thought came to mind PROTEIN correct me if I am wrong but protein is the bricks our bodies are made and maintained with? SO if thats the case its only when there is more than needed that protein ever gets burned as fuel? so for the most part any calories listed from protein are in effect empty calories.
So take one example off my fitday:

Calories Eaten Today
Total: 2185
Fat: 1235
Saturated: 308
Polyunsat: 316
Monounsat: 513
Carbohydrates: 93
Protein: 828
Alcohol: 0
2185 - 828 = 1357 calories and this was on a day that I trained hard.
Please someone tell me i am wrong and explain why.

Yes Joan this does help and no I am no expert. This is a hypothesis of mine and I was very interested in receiving just this kind of feedback and right now I'm lovin' it. Joan is very right, I did have my math wrong. In my reading I keep seeing that fat was less efficient than carbs for energy and that fat was 9gs and carbs 4. What it actually is is that 1g of fat yeilds 9 calories of fuel and 1g of carb yeilds 4 calories of energy....in other words 1g of fat gives you more energy than one gram of carb. The thing is like Joan said our body prefers carbs because they are a lot easier to break down and convert to glucose which is a really quick, easy form of instant energy. Fat does not so readily break down into such easy to use energy and like complex carbohydrates is much more slower to be turned into fuel so even though it yeilds more energy our body has a more difficult time utilizing that energy. I believe this may have something to do with why you can consume 1800 calories on a high carb diet and maintain weight and consumer 1800 calories on a high fat diet and lose weight. There's so many gaps in my opnion in the research of the effects of a low fat diet. I'd love to see a study on the weightloss of a group eating high fat low cal (1400s) versus a group eating high fat, high cal (1900s) and what the weightloss trend would be in the two groups, instances of stalls and how often they occur, things like that. But right now I only have the data and research that's mostly based on a diet that's high in carbs and what chemically happens to the foods you eat. I can't help but to think that reversing that pyramid causes a wholely different chemical reaction in your body and therefore very different results.

Please - everyone keep on giving feedback. I really think it's important that we try and understand what the causes of this "phenomenon" is. And I believe that with each hypothesis I and others come up with and each one we throw out or modify the closer we get to the answer. I believe I"m onto something here and I welcome......no beg, for your assistance in getting this right.


Yes it all really helps, and thank you again, Joan, Woo, Nancy, all of you for your feedback.

I like Poisonivy's theory and it jibes with my experience. I lost the most weight when I didn't worry one whit about calories. It was only when I got software and started punching all my food in to track carbs that I noticed the calories I was consuming and was horrified. So many people on these boards believe that they have to stay at some low calorie level as well as restricting carbs that I started keeping mine lower. My weight loss slowed to a crawl.

I think it's a giant leap of faith, after a lifetime of calorie counting, to just listen to the good doctor and not count them anymore. But I think it's the right thing to do, I know it works for me, and I think Poisonivy might just be onto why it works.

For the people who thought the OP was too long, just read it slowly; c'mon, you read DANDR and that was a whole book!

Thank you Binki. Not that I think my theory behind it is right, but I do believe I'm on the right track and appreciate your feedback. If anyone wants to understand more on how Atkins should be done.....read my post on "a great article on the history of low carb diets"

Full article found at http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/is...amBanting.shtml

This is really great stuff!!!

Here's an interesting link comparing metabolic rates of people on LC diets and low calorie diets. It also talks about different types of fats (saturated and unsaturated fats) and their effect on metabolic rates. Most of this is pretty dry, but there are summations at the end of the paragraphs that simplify what is being said about the studies.

I wonder what would have happened in the first study if they had not cut the calories on the LC group.

http://charm.cs.uiuc.edu/users/jyel...med/topic3.html

Now this is really interesting! This was written back in 1958 and is talking about eating fat to grow slim, this totally goes hand in hand with your theory, Poison Ivy:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/index.htm

Thank you sooo much for this. Much much needed.


A must for the best of section of the forum

wow..very interesting....can anyone break it down for me...I know it's all right here, but I'm hardly scientific! And I don't keep strict count of my calories. I keep guesstimates of my carbs as well. If someone could suggest some foods I could eat that'd be great....sorry for being a simpleton

This is a great thread! I love getting down to the basics (and not so basics ) of why this WOE works! Thanks to all of you who took, and or, are taking your time to research and post this info. for the rest of us to ponder.