 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004Just what is the key to losing the LC way?? Ketosis???
Ok, question: If you can eat minimal carbs and get into ketosis (whether using Atkins, SB, or some other plan) and then stay in ketosis, is THAT the key?? Do you then try to stay in ketosis?? To ensure weight loss over the long run, until goal? Obviously I realize that exercise is also a key for the majority, but I'm talking solely on the diet/food plan. Jumbles >Ok, question: If you can eat minimal carbs and get into ketosis (whether >using Atkins, SB, or some other plan) and then stay in ketosis, is THAT >the key?? All diets probably cause ketosis at some point, but most also cause you to loose lean muscle tissue as well as fat. Atkins also seeks to control insulin response, focus the body on ketosis only, break sugar/carb addictions, control appetite, elimiante cravings. >Do you then try to stay in ketosis?? To ensure weight loss over the >long run, until goal? Generally yes, with differing levels of carbs depending upon your individual body and progress through the diet. >Obviously I realize that exercise is also a key for the majority, but >I'm talking solely on the diet/food plan. >Jumbles DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) > Ok, question: If you can eat minimal carbs and get into ketosis (whether > using Atkins, SB, or some other plan) and then stay in ketosis, is THAT > the key?? the key is to consume fewer calories than you burn. the rest of it is window dressing. >> Ok, question: If you can eat minimal carbs and get into ketosis (whether >> using Atkins, SB, or some other plan) and then stay in ketosis, is THAT >> the key?? > > the key is to consume fewer calories than you burn. the rest of it is > window dressing. And low-carbing makes it far more painless to consume less food. It's nice to FEEL done after a meal and only have eaten the same amount that normal people do. CM >> Ok, question: If you can eat minimal carbs and get into ketosis (whether >> using Atkins, SB, or some other plan) and then stay in ketosis, is THAT >> the key?? > >the key is to consume fewer calories than you burn. the rest of it is >window dressing. Well, for a lot of people -- those who are insulin and/or metabolically resistant, it's rather more complicated than that. Low-carb is NOT just another method of calorie restriction. Dawn > >> Ok, question: If you can eat minimal carbs and get into ketosis (whether > >> using Atkins, SB, or some other plan) and then stay in ketosis, is THAT [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Low-carb is NOT just another method of calorie restriction. mea culpa. i forgot to say "absent mitigating medical conditions." >>the key is to consume fewer calories than you burn. the rest of it is >>window dressing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Low-carb is NOT just another method of calorie restriction. No joke. Anybody who doesn't believe this should visit some PCOS boards (insulin resistance is a common symptom) and see ALL the women who couldn't lose an ounce any other way, and then suddenly start shrinking when LCing. Considering that many of them eat MORE calories than they did on countless low-cal/fat diets, it just can't be that simple. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/234/140 & hubby- 310/260/180 For people who are intensely insulin resistant, lowering carbs makes it possible to lose weight where it wasn't before. That was my experience too. BUT, once the insulin is brought down low enough to allow weight loss, there still has to be a calorie deficit for weight loss to occur. This isn't apparent at first when the body seems to dump a lot of weight very fast (particularly if it was somehow blocked from doing this on the earlier low calorie/high carb diet), but after a while weigh loss will slow and then it becomes very clear if you track your intake. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > >>the key is to consume fewer calories than you burn. the rest of it is > >>window dressing. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Me- 265/234/140 > & hubby- 310/260/180 > For people who are intensely insulin resistant, lowering carbs makes > it possible to lose weight where it wasn't before. That was my > experience too. OK. > BUT, once the insulin is brought down low enough to allow weight > loss, there still has to be a calorie deficit for weight loss to > occur. Apparently you and Moosh are using the term "calorie deficit" tautologically: energy consumed in food must be less than energy used by the body, plus energy wasted in other ways (such as non-absorption). That is of course true. However you have glossed over your own admission that restricting carbs can change one from non-loss to loss, without changing calories at all. This demonstrates that "it's all about calorie deficit" is at best a gross oversimplification. Changing dietary composition can create a "deficit" where there wasn't one, without any change in total calories consumed--ACCORDING TO YOU. > This isn't apparent at first when the body seems to dump a lot of > weight very fast...but after a while weigh loss will slow... "When you restrict carbs without changing your caloric intake, you won't realize that your not-changed calorie intake is responsible for the weight loss, because you'll be losing weight so fast..." Um, you aren't making a lot of sense here. Regards, Len. > However you have glossed over your own admission that restricting > carbs can change one from non-loss to loss, without changing calories > at all. This demonstrates that "it's all about calorie deficit" is at > best a gross oversimplification. Changing dietary composition can > create a "deficit" where there wasn't one, without any change in total > calories consumed--ACCORDING TO YOU. The "calorie deficit" argument is simple and true. However, it involves factors that are not themselves simple. Basically, the calorie equation is thusly: eaten - refuse = burned(metabolism) + burned(activity) + stored Note that "refuse" is normally insignificant (even when the stix are deep purple). The problem with insulin sensitivity (or resistance) is that it changes the balance between burned and stored - if the fat cells are too insulin sensitive, they'll store calories even if the body needs them for fuel. So, losing weight consists of three parts: 1. Reducing the cals eaten (but not too far, see #2) 2. Optimizing your base metabolism (part of cals burned). 3. Increasing cals burned through activity. 4. Ensuring that "stored" cals goes negative (i.e. cals are released). > "When you restrict carbs without changing your caloric intake, you > won't realize that your not-changed calorie intake is responsible for > the weight loss, because you'll be losing weight so fast..." > > Um, you aren't making a lot of sense here. When you first reduce carbs, you lose water weight for a while. Until that stops, you can't judge the other effects of your new diet. At least, I think that's what that quote means. >> However you have glossed over your own admission that restricting >> carbs can change one from non-loss to loss, without changing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > involves factors that are not themselves simple. Basically, the > calorie equation is thusly... Which means that the average person hearing the statement will draw all sorts fo incorrect conclusions, of the same sort generally advocated by folks who declare that "a calorie is a calorie". For example, they will probably get out a chart of BMR, a calorie counter, and a treadmill, and assume that the statement means that exercise calories plus BMR should equal dietary calories. Or they may (and the vast majority do) assume that since a calorie is a calorie, a diet of 800 calories of sugar and 100 calories of butter will promote weight loss exactly as well as any 1000 calorie diet. This is exactly the claim of Moosh, for example. > eaten - refuse = burned(metabolism) + burned(activity) + stored > > Note that "refuse" is normally insignificant (even when the stix are > deep purple)... Here "refuse" apparently refers to calories that pass through undigested, but not to waste products that result from metabolism. Waste products from metabolism are NOT insignificant: glycolysis is about 4% efficient, for example. > The problem with insulin sensitivity (or resistance) is that it > changes the balance between burned and stored - if the fat cells are > too insulin sensitive, they'll store calories even if the body needs > them for fuel. That's an incomplete statement. If you awake alive tomorrow, and have succesfully hoisted your body into bed last night, then apparently your body met its energy needs SOMEHOW. This balance you speak of exists, but only within certain limits. > So, losing weight consists of three parts: Okay... > 1. Reducing the cals eaten (but not too far, see #2) For many, that's probably true. But not necessarily. I have lost weight without reducing caloric intake, for example. > 2. Optimizing your base metabolism (part of cals burned). This is non-trivial, although several proposed methods exist. Increase LBM is one. The "afterburn" from exercise is another. "Thermogenic" foods are another. Some suggest that ketosis may be another. > 3. Increasing cals burned through activity. Never hurts a bit. > 4. Ensuring that "stored" cals goes negative (i.e. cals are released). You said "three" parts. >> "When you restrict carbs without changing your caloric intake, you >> won't realize that your not-changed calorie intake is responsible for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Until that stops, you can't judge the other effects of your new > diet. At least, I think that's what that quote means. That doesn't appear to be what she means. The water weight loss ends after the first few weeks. She appeared to be referring more to the time one approaches one's goal weight. Regards, Len. > Which means that the average person hearing the statement will draw > all sorts fo incorrect conclusions, of the same sort generally > advocated by folks who declare that "a calorie is a calorie". I think that happens no matter what you tell people. How many people actually know their daily burn rate anyway? > Here "refuse" apparently refers to calories that pass through > undigested, Yes, or metabolic intermediates that aren't fully metabolized, like urinary ketones. Basically, any useful calories that the body eliminates unused. > That's an incomplete statement. If you awake alive tomorrow, and have > succesfully hoisted your body into bed last night, then apparently > your body met its energy needs SOMEHOW. This balance you speak of > exists, but only within certain limits. True, but consider that your body has lots of ways of reducing the amount of calories it needs. It may decide to cut down on antibody production, for example. > > 1. Reducing the cals eaten (but not too far, see #2) > > For many, that's probably true. But not necessarily. I have lost > weight without reducing caloric intake, for example. It does assume you're eating too much to begin with, which is the more common case for the general public. My point was that eating too much can make pretty much anyone stop losing weight. > > 2. Optimizing your base metabolism (part of cals burned). > > This is non-trivial, although several proposed methods > exist. Increase LBM is one. The "afterburn" from exercise is > another. "Thermogenic" foods are another. Some suggest that ketosis > may be another. Yes, this is the tricky part. Lyle's UD2 seems to focus on this aspect more than others. > > 3. Increasing cals burned through activity. > > Never hurts a bit. Unless you cause too much deficit, then you end up making #2 worse. > > 4. Ensuring that "stored" cals goes negative (i.e. cals are released). > > You said "three" parts. I lied ;-) > That doesn't appear to be what she means. The water weight loss ends > after the first few weeks. She appeared to be referring more to the > time one approaches one's goal weight. Well, I can't help with that then. Jumbles, You can be in ketosis for literally years and not lose a pound. I've done it. The real key is to burn more calories than you take in. People lose weight eating lots of carbs and they lose weight eating very few carbs and they stall doing both too. The true benefit of low carbing is that it controls hunger by elimination blood sugar swings and it may also limit insulin spiking that leads to the deposit of fat in cells. Unfortunately, with all the new high calorie "low carb" foods available it is increasingly easy to stay in ketosis and still consume far more calories than the body needs, leading to no weight loss. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > Ok, question: If you can eat minimal carbs and get into ketosis (whether > using Atkins, SB, or some other plan) and then stay in ketosis, is THAT [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jumbles > Ok, question: If you can eat minimal carbs and get into ketosis (whether > using Atkins, SB, or some other plan) and then stay in ketosis, is THAT > the key?? > > Do you then try to stay in ketosis?? To ensure weight loss over the > long run, until goal? Atkins answer. No. Your example is like getting in the car, turning on the engine, stomping on the gas, and expecting you'll magically get to work at the end of the commute. In driving there's this stuff called steering that's about control and about knowing where you're going. The key idea of Atkins is that everyone has an ideal carb level to lose (and another ideal carb level to maintain). Atkins is a process to find those two levels. Getting into ketosis is merely step one, the sound bite that lacks the idea of how the process works. Ketosis is the tool of Atkins phases 1 and 2, but merely staying in ketosis is by no means what the process actually is. > Ok, question: If you can eat minimal carbs and get into ketosis (whether > using Atkins, SB, or some other plan) and then stay in ketosis, is THAT [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jumbles the key is you eat less calories than you burn...like any other effective diet. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.