I'm still on induction, and still losing weight.
But I'm not yet convinced that low carb has any deep magic
over low-calorie in general

My experience so far is that lowering carbs is doing two things:

1. It's weaning (or, in the case of Atkins induction, bludgeoning) me off
high GI carbs

and

2. It is lowering my calorie intake, because I'm getting fed up with
not having carbs, and so am unwittingly reducing *calories* as
a result

And Atkins says there's a third effect - the metabolic advantage.
That is, he's saying:

3. The very act of burning a calorie itself requires  energy (i.e.
calories),
and the act of burning a fat calorie consumes more energy than the act of
burning a carb calorie

Although point 1 does have some additional effects, the overwhelming
effect of points 1, 2 and 3 seems to be the increasing of an individual's
daily *calorie* deficit.

And that's why I'm losing weight.  As far as I can see, ketosis is just
a bit of science chucked in to bamboozle the non-medics among
us.  But in fact, fat is getting burned provided one has a calorie
intake less than the calorie output.  Same old story.

Am I wrong?  Is there something else in low-carb'ing, other than
it tends to mean you consume fewer calories than you need?

slr

P.S. Now maybe ketosis just is what happens when one has a calorie
deficit.  Fine.  But in that case, you don't have to low-carb to achieve
it.  You just have to lower calories.

P.P.S. None of this is meant to say that the Atkins diet (for example)
is a waste of space.  It may still provide an invaluable psychological
factor, to motivate the dieter.  Certainly I'm currently finding that it
does.