Tweet
I didn't want to hi-jack the other thread with a discourse of watching calorie counts, especially on a low-carb Diet. Still, calories do matter, regardless of way of eating.
All Diets are Essentially Calorie- Controlled
Lately I've been running into the notion that there are people out there who don't think that low-carb regimens are also really low-cal regimens, minus the starvation and feelings of dissatisfaction.
I've had people come to me and say, "How did you lose 30 pounds in less than a month?" Answering this honestly has caused some brouhaha. Some people think Atkins is a mystical fount of weight loss that has nothing to do with caloric intake. Others are certain that calorie counting removes the one thing that makes the Atkins plan special.
I say pish.
If even Atkins notes that there are many metabolisms and many differences in our unique bodies, how is it, then, that we are assigned arbitrary BMR numbers and are expected to force-feed ourselves to those numbers?
Does this make any sense?
People who have weight loss surgery take in roughly 600-800 calories a day. They lose an immense amount of weight. The doctors are happy, the person is happy. But should the average Atkins dieter do the same thing minus the surgery, loses the weight as effortlessly, and doesn't have the complications from the surgery, accomplishing the same feat as the person with surgery, it is met with negativity?
Does this make any sense?
Starvation mode is a term thrown about loosely, and it doesn't apply in many ways. If exercising, a person's muscle will be built, not atrophied for energy. And our organs will not be digested by our bodies when the easiest thing in the world for our bods to convert to energy is our immense amounts of fat stores! Again, people who have had weight loss surgery are not in fear of losing their organs and we are?
Does this make sense?
I think that people sometimes don't want to admit that Atkins is, in its very nature, a calorie-controlled program. I can understand this. While I was following this way of eating at first I had a very hard time believing this is actually a calorie-controlled way of eating and fought that idea tooth and nail, until I looked at the numbers. I see now that this is, in fact, the only calorie-controlled method that works, leaves me feeling full, satisfied and without any fear of cheating or falling off the wagon.
But I won't arbitrarily feed myself to reach BMR when my body tells me it doesn't want the extra food.
Another way of looking at this:
Why are we to feed our current arbitrary BMR?
Doesn't it make more sense to feed our goal weight BMR? afterall, where are we going to be eating for maintenance for the rest of our lives? Where do we most need to prepare ourselves to remain for perpetuity?
Weight Watchers recognizes this, and while being a low-cal diet, knows that the end result must always be the body's goal weight. The proram takes a person from their current 'Bmr" intake to their final one, incrementally, according to weight loss. It would be an excellent plan were it not for the fact that I starved the entire time eating higher-glycemic foods!
While the first 14 days on Atkins is NOT to be a calorie counting experience, but rather one of de-toxing and cleansing, and renewal, once a person clears that point, it is important to begin taking note of what is being eaten, both calorically and carb-wise, by using fit day and by ensuring the percentages also look intact.
Exercise is crucial, as is taking supplements. But I've lost a lot of weight in this last month, and it wasn't because I ate bag after bag of pork rinds to assuage my arbitrary BMR numbers.
A person can get fat on Atkins by taking in too many calories. In the end, it always comes down to caloric intake.
All Diets are Essentially Calorie- Controlled
Lately I've been running into the notion that there are people out there who don't think that low-carb regimens are also really low-cal regimens, minus the starvation and feelings of dissatisfaction.
I've had people come to me and say, "How did you lose 30 pounds in less than a month?" Answering this honestly has caused some brouhaha. Some people think Atkins is a mystical fount of weight loss that has nothing to do with caloric intake. Others are certain that calorie counting removes the one thing that makes the Atkins plan special.
I say pish.
If even Atkins notes that there are many metabolisms and many differences in our unique bodies, how is it, then, that we are assigned arbitrary BMR numbers and are expected to force-feed ourselves to those numbers?
Does this make any sense?
People who have weight loss surgery take in roughly 600-800 calories a day. They lose an immense amount of weight. The doctors are happy, the person is happy. But should the average Atkins dieter do the same thing minus the surgery, loses the weight as effortlessly, and doesn't have the complications from the surgery, accomplishing the same feat as the person with surgery, it is met with negativity?
Does this make any sense?
Starvation mode is a term thrown about loosely, and it doesn't apply in many ways. If exercising, a person's muscle will be built, not atrophied for energy. And our organs will not be digested by our bodies when the easiest thing in the world for our bods to convert to energy is our immense amounts of fat stores! Again, people who have had weight loss surgery are not in fear of losing their organs and we are?
Does this make sense?
I think that people sometimes don't want to admit that Atkins is, in its very nature, a calorie-controlled program. I can understand this. While I was following this way of eating at first I had a very hard time believing this is actually a calorie-controlled way of eating and fought that idea tooth and nail, until I looked at the numbers. I see now that this is, in fact, the only calorie-controlled method that works, leaves me feeling full, satisfied and without any fear of cheating or falling off the wagon.
But I won't arbitrarily feed myself to reach BMR when my body tells me it doesn't want the extra food.
Another way of looking at this:
Why are we to feed our current arbitrary BMR?
Doesn't it make more sense to feed our goal weight BMR? afterall, where are we going to be eating for maintenance for the rest of our lives? Where do we most need to prepare ourselves to remain for perpetuity?
Weight Watchers recognizes this, and while being a low-cal diet, knows that the end result must always be the body's goal weight. The proram takes a person from their current 'Bmr" intake to their final one, incrementally, according to weight loss. It would be an excellent plan were it not for the fact that I starved the entire time eating higher-glycemic foods!
While the first 14 days on Atkins is NOT to be a calorie counting experience, but rather one of de-toxing and cleansing, and renewal, once a person clears that point, it is important to begin taking note of what is being eaten, both calorically and carb-wise, by using fit day and by ensuring the percentages also look intact.
Exercise is crucial, as is taking supplements. But I've lost a lot of weight in this last month, and it wasn't because I ate bag after bag of pork rinds to assuage my arbitrary BMR numbers.
A person can get fat on Atkins by taking in too many calories. In the end, it always comes down to caloric intake.
easily food-confused 
Comment