 |
 | 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 / General Topics / July 2005Question on Calorie count with Atkins
I have breezed over the book to try to find out the calorie count I should be on. I did a similar program a few years back and did rather well, but I had a nutritionist's help. I don't have the luxury of that anymore and I don't remember how mant grams of fat to how many grams of protien I should limit myself too. I do recall not going over 20 grams of carbs (practically none , in other words). Can someone please help? Thank you... > I have breezed over the book to try to find out the calorie count I > should be on. I did a similar program a few years back and did rather [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of carbs (practically none , in other words). Can someone please help? > Thank you... Perhaps you should re-read the book again after breezing through it. The book says that after a short starting periods, you should raise carbs above 20. It discusses "CCLM" and such. You seem to have missed this wholly, which is discussed in perhaps 1/3rd of the book. The Atkins book that I read does not, as such, recommend counting calories. It does not recommend not counting calories either, it is silent on the subject, if I recall correctly. How many calories to eat depends on sex, age, and activity level, as well as many other things. That said, for women, limiting calories to 10x bodyweight in pounds, and for men to 12 times bodyweight per pound, usually produces weight loss. Calorie counting is not incompatible with low carbing. Atkins recommends to be "shockingly unafraid of fat", to count carbs according to his program (read the book), and does not go into great depths with respect to protein amount. Dr. Atkins debunks the concept that fat, as such, causes disease, and recommends that we abandon fear of fat. You need to read the Atkins book in depth before beginning the Atkins diet, if you choose to be on it.  Signature223/174.8/180 Well, like Igor says, but calories are the key to weightloss. Atkins was coming from an era where calorie calculation was impractical. Today, one can use a $20 download from Fitday to track calories and nutrition with a minimal effort. The reduced appetite from an Atkins-like diet is the perfect opportunity to monitor and manage calories. http://www.FitDay.com Cubit 311/160.8/150 I have no connection to Fitday, except as a customer. > > I have breezed over the book to try to find out the calorie count I > > should be on. I did a similar program a few years back and did rather [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > You need to read the Atkins book in depth before beginning the Atkins > diet, if you choose to be on it. > Well, like Igor says, but calories are the key to weightloss. Atkins was > coming from an era where calorie calculation was impractical. Today, one > can use a $20 download from Fitday to track calories and nutrition with a > minimal effort. Also, one does not have to count calories to limit calories. Eating smaller portions day in and day out would give the same result as counting calories and limiting them to the same number as you would achieve by just limiting portions. I agree with Cubit that eating less is indispensable and low carb can only provide some help in eating less. i > The reduced appetite from an Atkins-like diet is the perfect opportunity to > monitor and manage calories. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> You need to read the Atkins book in depth before beginning the Atkins >> diet, if you choose to be on it. Signature223/174.8/180 > > Well, like Igor says, but calories are the key to weightloss. Atkins was > > coming from an era where calorie calculation was impractical. Today, one [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is indispensable and low carb can only provide some help in eating > less. > >> The Atkins book that I read does not, as such, recommend counting > >> calories. It does not recommend not counting calories either, it is > >> silent on the subject, if I recall correctly. The Atkins book says you should count carbs and that's all. In effect, Dr A asserts that as long as you keep your carbs at your quota then total calories, protein grams and fat grams will all take care of themselves. He seems to make this assertion for everyone. No assertion of that sort is really true for everyone, but consider. Lots of people refuse to believe it will be true for them so they never try following that piece of advice. They have no way of knowing if it's true because they assume it's false and ignore it. Among the folks I've tracked over the years it's been true for a lot more than ever believed it. Only certain foods are truely carb-free rather than the trick on US labels of rounding down to zero. They are meat (other than molluscs and crustaceans), oils and fats and maybe some less common stuff. If you keep your carbs low, most people don't overeat on meat and purified fat. Including people who think back to how they ate in their high carb days and assume they will. Believe it or not, counting nothing but carbs works for very close to everyone. There isn't any magic to it. So many types of food have some carbs that if you count carbs from all sources and you keep your portions low, there isn't that much you can eat. Dr A suggested that it works for everyone and while that isn't true, it's something worth taking his word on and trying it out. Step out in faith and follow the directions as they are written in the book including the parts you don't believe. Try it and see if it works. it does for most. >> > Well, like Igor says, but calories are the key to weightloss. Atkins was >> > coming from an era where calorie calculation was impractical. Today, one [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > parts you don't believe. Try it and see if it works. it does > for most. Well, on the other hand, you mentioned that cutting carbs did not produce the same result for you personally. I think that we both agree that low carb is not a universal weight loss/maintenance method, but it works for most people. I am low carbing and find it beautiful that I can eat tasty stuff, not be hungry and stay slim. Calorie restriction, if adhered to, works for 100% people up to the point when they get starvation edema, which could artificially raise weight of a starving person. Calorie restriction and low carbing are not incompatible approaches. Signature223/174.8/180 > >> > Well, like Igor says, but calories are the key to weightloss. Atkins was > >> > coming from an era where calorie calculation was impractical. Today, one [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Well, on the other hand, you mentioned that cutting carbs did not > produce the same result for you personally. Not just me personally. I've correpsonded with very many people who stopped losing from staying at 20. When the Escribe board was at its highest traffic it averaged one new poster every 2 days who stayed on Induction, lost fine in the regular 2 weeks, didn't lose at all in the next 4, and then asked what was going on on the board. None of these folks ever seemed to have 100+ to lose, so for a while I tracked their amounts to lose. Less to lose, more common to appear in the list. During the same time the board averaged 1 person every 2 weeks who continued to lose well staying at 20. To qualify for that list I needed the person to still be losing after week 6 and not have 100+ to go. I tabulated the names several separate months and the ratios were 1-7, 1-7 and 1-6 losers to stallers. I know folks object that my data is not scientifically valid and that's true, but is there scientifically valid data anywhere on the topic? No. Until there is valid data I will stick to mine, especially since the conclusion it points to is so simple - The entire Atkins 4-phase process works better than the most obvious variation of staying on Induction. Personally, I followed the 4-phase process for 6 months and lost well. Then I dropped to 30 for 6 months and didn't lose at all. It was easy to stay at 30. > I think that we both agree that low carb is not a universal weight > loss/maintenance method, but it works for most people. I am low > carbing and find it beautiful that I can eat tasty stuff, not be > hungry and stay slim. Check. Other methods work. Low carbing is easier for many including me. > Calorie restriction, if adhered to, works for 100% people up to the > point when they get starvation edema, which could artificially raise > weight of a starving person. That "if adhered to" part is hard. Mild caloric reduction works well and does not trigger much hunger but it is slower than most want. More extreme caloric reduction favored by many newbies triggers metabolic reactions. > Calorie restriction and low carbing are not incompatible approaches. Especially from the apptite suppression and lack of blood sugar swings. At 311 pounds, cutting carbs alone did indeed produce results. However, I suspect that for many of those eating ad-lib with reduced carbs leads down to a plateau. A plateau at a level which is not one's optimal weight. > > > Well, like Igor says, but calories are the key to weightloss. Atkins was > > > coming from an era where calorie calculation was impractical. Today, one [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > parts you don't believe. Try it and see if it works. it does > for most. Cubit schreef: > At 311 pounds, cutting carbs alone did indeed produce results. However, I > suspect that for many of those eating ad-lib with reduced carbs leads down > to a plateau. A plateau at a level which is not one's optimal weight. That's exactly what happened to me. So now I count calories (with FitDay PC), and I'm losing again. I still don't eat a lot of carbs compared with 'normal' people, but way more than when I was on Atkins, mainly because I eat loads of fruit now. I *love* fruit, and it was the only thing I really missed. I also like to eat some potatoes or beans now and again. Berna (101.5/66.5/64 kg) Signature( )_( ) Berna M. Bleeker-Slikker / . . \ berna.bleeker@gmail.com \ \@/ / http://www.volksliedjes.nl > At 311 pounds, cutting carbs alone did indeed produce results. If you mean cutting carbs without changing average total calories, that's what the "metabolic edge" claim is all about. > However, I > suspect that for many of those eating ad-lib with reduced carbs leads down > to a plateau. A plateau at a level which is not one's optimal weight. The problem with the "metabolic edge" claim is any metabolic increase seems somehow proportional to the amount of excess stored fat. The edge seems to hit zero somewhere around 10-20 pounds to go. As folks lose, their portions need to decrease accordingly. I don't know that Dr A ever mentioned the fact. He appears to put most of his focus on the earlier events in the sequence. >>At 311 pounds, cutting carbs alone did indeed produce results. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I don't know that Dr A ever mentioned the fact. He appears > to put most of his focus on the earlier events in the sequence. I found that for the first two weeks it looks like there is a "metabolic edge" of more than 20%. After that it is unmeasurably small. The same as with low-calorie dieting. :) doug |
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.