Admin Note: This was originally a response in this topic, but I felt it warrented it's own topic. Original post follows:

-----

I absolutely DO NOT count calories on Atkins. I have lost 44 pounds in 7 months. Started at 207 and today, I'm 163. My goal was 164, but I'm just going to let my body do its thing until it stops. I'm 5"8 with a 30-inch waist, and I am a runner and three-day per week weight lifter.

Jimmy's post today from Dr. Groves should be required reading to anyone on a low-carb diet. If my weight loss stalled, I merely increased my fat intake.

Whether you have a lot of weight to lose, or just a little, you have to keep eating fat because there are more important considerations here. You cannot get the essential nutrients from most low glycemic vegetables when you don't have enough dietary fat. I'll be glad to provide the links to the studies. Many of those essential nutrients are "fat soluable." I believe this is why that major study failed where people ate at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day, yet saw no different in health, mortality or protection from diseases.

Regina Wilshire's posts have been instructive. One day we're all going to learn much about the proper ratio between protein, fat, and carbohydrates. Of course, this ratio varies widly between people. I agree that bigger people need more fat and protein than smaller people, but you can't quantify that with a number. However, the RATIO remains true. If you have protein and fat at the center of your meal, good carbohydrates should take up half of whatever carbohydrate amount you can tolerate, just as it did on Induction. People have trouble moving off of Induction because they don't pay attention to the ratio they established in Induction as they move to Ongoing weight loss.

It's impossible to overeat a steak! Your body will tell you when it's time to stop because you'll get naseous if you attempt to keep going. Despite that, you will not get fat from your attempt.

You cannot overeat on good carbohydrates and expect to continue to lose weight. You have to lessen the effect of carbohydrate on your system. This is what Atkins phases were meant to teach us. You have to discover that ratio and master it.

Charles, VERY nice post. It was very informative and logical. These are the kinds of posts I absolutely LOVE because there is something to be learned from them, no matter HOW long you have been low-carbing.
Thank you!

Mary

Great to SEE you, too, Charles! Smart and handsome.

Thanks, cartbabe and Jimmy, you're too kind. I took that picture today from my cell phone. I was afraid, very afraid.

I apologize in advance for the length of this, but from reading the posts, I'd like to add some information for us to consider.

All of us low-carbers know that all calories are not created equal, but for some reason, the calories in - calories out notion is a difficult concept to wash from our brains. It's just not that simple. I see people on my lunch hour eating grilled chicken, salad, and a chocolate chip cookie and they are happy because they are within their calorie allotment. It's not that simple!

The phrase "you are what you eat" should be modified to "you are what your body does with what you eat." Livin' La Vida Low Carb is about feeding our metabolism. Restricting calories is always done at a high cost to one's metabolism. You can't restrict calories as you lose or you'll eat away at the gains you worked so hard to achieve. It's more important to learn how to eat, than how much to eat.

I've read some history about Dr. Ornish and the formation of the low fat/low calorie dogma. It seems that the low calorie theory was born out of anorexia. Leaving aside the psychological problem, from a physical standpoint, anorexia involves starving the body of protein and fat. (It only takes the smallest amount of glucose (carbohydrate) to sustain the body, and the body can metabolize this amount on its own). The metabolism comes to a screeching halt and the body begins to eat the muscles and internal organs to get the necessary protein.

Based on these observations, the low fat dogmatists (is that a word?) established the lowest level of protein and calories that a person could reasonably sustain before the body begins to harm itself. They merely sought to keep the body above this threshold. If you notice, successful people on low-fat diets rarely have much muscle. As they add weight training, they get too hungry and ultimately their diets fail because their muscles become starved for protein.

I keep seeing many posts that subtly include caloric restriction for their arguments, which was based on this 2000 per day caloric limit. This limit has subjected the Dietary Guidelines to severe criticism. At these levels, even the ADA already knows that it's very difficult to get all the nutrients, thus the recommended multi-vitamin.

Consider a recent article from Men's Health which states: "An analysis of the high-carbohydrate, low-fat plan, presented last January at a conference of the Nutrition & Metabolism Society, showed that it didn't provide the recommended dietary allowances (RDA) of four essential nutrients: potassium, iron, vitamin D, and vitamin E. The ADA diet, in fact, was deficient.The culprit? The plan's 2,000-calorie limit, says Judith Wylie-Rosett, Ed.D., R.D., a coauthor of the ADA's 2006 nutrition recommendations. "The more you restrict calories on any diet, the harder it is to get the nutrients you need from food."

Here are the results of some studies that looked into the nutrient absorption problem:

"The vitamin C in fruits and vegetables is water-soluble, so it is unaffected by dietary fat. But beta-carotene and the other carotenoids, as well as vitamin E, are fat-soluble and require some fat for best absorption from the digestive tract. And you don’t need that much- a teaspoon of oil, three ounces of poultry (or other lean protein), an egg, or a tablespoon of nuts will do it!

In one recent study at the University of Michigan, four groups of women consumed varying amounts of fruits and vegetables with a diet of either 30% fat or 16% fat. Some nutrients were not affected by the fat content of the diet, while others decreased notably. A very important form of vitamin E called gamma-tocopherol which seems to act as an anti-inflammatory and may even stimulate self-destruction of cancer cells, dropped by more than 50 percent. We get gamma-tocopherol from pistachios, pecans, walnuts and peanuts, as well as a small amount from avocados.

Some fat-soluble antioxidants that are better absorbed by the body if consumed with a little fat:
Lutein (spinach and kale), Beta carotene (carrots, canteloupe), Lycopene (tomatoes), Zeaxanthin (spinach, kale), Vitamin E (broccoli, spinach, walnuts, pistachios). Bottom line: A hard boiled egg or some olive oil on that spinach salad will increase it’s value to your body!

This is why I argue that ratio is far more important than how much you eat. Protein and fat must be at the center of your plate, and carbohydrates must be split in half between low glycemic vegetables and other carbohydrates that your body can tolerate. I argue that eating too many empty carbohydrates can stall weight loss because one is simply not absorbing them.

All the best,

Charles

You keep typing long posts like this, Charles. They're absolutely chock full of GREAT information! Incidentally, I met that ADA spokesperson you noted a few months ago while attending the American Society of Bariatric Physician's conference in Nashville, TN. She was almost apologizing for her organization's stand on carbohydrates and calories and is actually one of the more low-carb friendly leaders in the ADA. But she's fighting an uphill battle amongst her peers who are stuck in low-fat/low-calorie dogma.

Keep sharing, Charles! We like you, buddy!

Charles, thank you so much for that incredibly informed post. I'm definately subscribing to this thread. Please keep it coming, and I'll keep learning

What they all said, Charles.

Thank you for taking the time to share...you are a teacher by example as well as knowledge, and that fosters and mentors the best students. And we are all student's, after all. There are none of us so brilliant that we cannot learn, and none of us so simple that we cannot teach.

As for the length of your posts, in real estate, it is location, locaton, location. In writing, it is content, content, content. Reminds me a little of what a jealous Truman Capote wrote about Joyce Carol Oates: That's not writing. That's typing.

Trust me, Charles, and everyone else on this thread...you're writing!

As Rainy said, well, not quite in these words, because she is too young..."I'm with you, Kid."

Chrysalis

Very interesting............thanks.

Hi, Charles!

This post was really great!
Thanks so much! I learned
a great deal!

In the Spirit
Jazzy Judi in Colorado

Thanks for the kind words. I think I need to "subscribe" to these threads too because I didn't know so many of you wrote replies! Speaking of writing, Chrysalis, I've enjoyed your posts in the different discussions as well.

My mother used to say, "there is knowledge and there is wisdom. Young people can gain knowledge by the tons, but they generally lack the wisdom to know when and where to apply their knowledge and thus appear very foolish. Wisdom only comes with living. So, keep living young man!"

All the best,

Charles