IMHO the key is partitioning and metabolic problems.  Calories in
don't always go where you want them to go.  For example, someone with
metabolic problems might eat 1000 kcals/day and, because of insulin
response and fat cell biology, have half of it stored EVEN IF other
parts of the body could use it for energy.  Later in the day, when the
body calls for energy, the cells are reluctant to release it, and you
"starve".

If fat cells were perfectly linear in all of us, dieting probably
wouldn't be an issue.  But fat cells are not linear - for some people,
fat cells are greedy, for others, they're not.  For people with greedy
cells, it might be better to spread your calories more evenly
throughout the day (more meals, smaller meals) to avoid getting too
far from the median point of fat cells (i.e. stay away from the greedy
modes).  This is similar to the "don't try to lose too fast" advice,
but realized on an hour by hour basis rather than a week by week
basis.

Maybe there is a "metabolic advantage" in eating low-carbs. Who knows. Some
studies show there is (rather one study and some anectodal evidence), some
studies show there isn't. Some studies, according to Dean Ornish, even show
there is a metabolic advantage to eating very low *fat*.

But the points are:

(1) Even if there is a metabolic advantage it is only on the order of 200 or
300 calories per day. That isn't much in the overall scheme of things when
you are eating very high calorie foods.

(2) Given the same amount of carbs, the choice with the least calories is
certainly always better for weight loss.

I discuss this at my low-carb, low-cal site - http://diet.lifemind.com.

doug

On 3/19/04 10:37 AM, in article t1jk50d9hqtd27pmg8d6s1ajqg1as2n975@4ax.com,

Yes, however exactly how many calories do you expend? You don't know,
and you wont know. You don't know most of the variables in how many
calories are being expended through all the metabolic processes going
on in your body. The "eat less, exercise more" crowd ignore these
complexities and simply infer just starve a little more(eat
less)--after all you arent overeating on a diet!  And diet compostiion
does appear to matter greatly in the final goal in the simple calories
in-calories out world. Calorie counters don't figure that in well
enough for people with carb problems.

"Metabolism" a magic word that explains every change where the real
answer more often is "I have no idea why this is happening". The eat
less calories than you expend is a formula with both haves unknown.
You don't know what calories you are expending, so you can't know what
is appropriate to consume. If you always assume that the only answer
is lower than what you are eating at the moment that may lead you
lower than you should be for a healthy body. Stalls are not always
caused by overaeating.

Not to mock you, it is a general thing. Metabolism is tossed about to
explain everything without actually explaining it. If my metabolism
slows, my body isn't doing all the things it used to. Plain and
simple-law of thermodynamics. My body is NOT doing something.  So what
has it stopped doing? We have no clue. Am i weakening my immune
system, am I not digesting things properly (malnutrition), am I not
rebuilding blood cels and repairing tissue and muscle damage, am I not
thinking clearly? At this lower metabolism, which one might think it
is an unhealthy thing. Should I starve my body more? Calories in
Calories out say that is a valid choice. LCers will actually increase
carbs/intake and jumpstart the metabolism without the decrease in
calories.

And I think those other issues are greater than simple calories
in/out. The carb addiction issue is FAR MORE IMPORTANT for me than
calories. Counting calories doesn't allow me to lose weight
effectively, counting carbs did. It seems like magic at first, I
ignore calorie intake and it just starts droppping. People think
calories don't matter, but they do. It is more important to under
stand what is going on inside the body.

Atkins has examples of people who couldn't lose weight eating 900
calories a day! The eat less-exercise more group says they're eating
too much. No! There is more too it than that. It doesn't break the law
of thermodynamics but it shows we don't know enough about what is goin
on in the body to understand the basics of "what should we eat".

It's like telling a kid all he has to do to drive a car is turn the
key, shift, gas, steer. No, there is more to know in the reality of
it. Yeah that will get the car moving but you are going to crash.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/316/Mar-315/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-35 carbs/day (CCLL=?)