How long did you let the experiment last? Was it the full 2 weeks?

As for fattier cuts of meat. If you incorporate foods that you typically see in bbq restaurants, it will help a lot. Ribs, brisket, and pulled pork are great choices. There is so much fat in them that it doesn't really matter how you cook them.

I went for 12 days. Looks like I gave up on the experiment 2 days short of 14. Thanks for the suggestions on the meat. The meat I used during the experiment was chicken breasts (with skin), grilled pork loins, hamburger, and some pre-packaged ham. All grilled (except the ham) and all pretty lean (including the ham).

I also noticed that 3,000 calories with a 60/40 fat to protein ratio seemed to be the break even ratio in terms of not gaining or losing water weight from one day to the next. But usually if I upped the fat, the calories went over 3,000, or if I upped the protein (more meat), my water weight went up at a lower calorie level. Most days I either stayed flat on weight or bumped up slightly. Water ieight is not fat, of course, but you're supposed to lose water weight on induction. I wasn't. (Although my glycogen levels were probably already low to begin with, due to my previous diet and exercise).

Here's something interesting. Except for the ground beef (80/20?), I rarely eat the meats you were eating. I've found over time I feel a lot better on the fattier cuts of meat.

Personally, I don't think the extra 2 days would have made a big difference. I'm surprised you didn't lose water too. Definitely sounds like something was keeping your insulin levels high.

You may be on to something. Dr. Atkins specifically said that if only eat the lower fat foods, the diet will fail. He didn't elaborate too much on it though. Maybe you figured it out with the protein insulin connection.

Okay, Patrick, here's Gary Taubes' response to your questions:

(1) Once you are on a low carb diet, do calories (and dietary fat consumption) matter?

In my experience, they do. It appears that the higher one's intake of dietary fat, the lower the level of body fat burned off. This becomes more obvious the lower one's level of obesity (i.e., the obese can consume more fat and still lose weight, but as they lose weight there is a point below which this is no longer true). In my view, this explains some of the plateau issues that some people run into on low carb diets, and also suggests that to achieve optimal weight, at some point you need to add calorie and fat restriction on top of the low carb diet. What is his read?

This brings up a few points. Here's one: let's say you've plateaued, but now you want to cut carbohydrates as low as possible while keeping your total calories constant. To do so, you'll have to increase fat or protein content to compensate -- remember diet is a trade-off in this sense. You might increase both. You're likely to increase fat more. So in this scenario, fat intake goes up and weight probably comes down.

You're giving us another scenario: you plateau, cut calories and fat while calories from carbs remain low and constant. Now its possible this will lower weight further, but it raises the question of what is an ideal weight, and whether anyone will be able to keep this up. Remember, the idea is that your appetite is theoretically matched to your metabolic needs. If carbs are driving calories into your fat tissue, you consume more calories to make up the difference and keep the rest of your body adequately surprised. Now if you cut calories beneath what you're comfortable eating, you'll be hungry -- by definition -- and your metabolism might slow as a response to the reduction in energy supply. So, yes, you might lose a few more pounds, just as you would on any semi-starvation diet, but you'd do so at the cost of decreased energy and increased hunger. This is all speculation and it would be nice to test it to see if I'm right.

Now, back to the issue of optimal weight. In the book, I phrase my conclusions, as I do most everything else, pretty carefully. So I say "the less carbohydrates consumed, the leaner we will be," but I do not say we'll be as lean as we might like -- what I think you're describing as optimal weight. It seems likely to me that those prediposed to be very fat -- in other words, those that are the most sensitive to carbohydrates in the diet -- and those individuals who have been very fat for a long time will have trouble reversing this process entirely; that there is chronic damage done by the diets they've been consuming.

Thus, the leanest they'll be will be on the diet with the least carbohydrates, but that may still not be lean. They may lose 50 or 100 pounds and have another 40 or 50 to go, but weight loss stops because their fat tissue is so exceedingly sensitive to insulin that even the whiff of a taint of a carbohydrate in the diet will lock up fat and keep it there. Again, this may or may not be the case, but my reading of the literature suggests it is. Had they grown up in a world without refined carbs and sugars, they might have always been relatively lean. Having eaten diets high in refined carbs and sugars for a few decades, though, it's possible that they may never undo all the damage done, only some of it. It's also possible that it could take years or decades to do it, and that a six month plateau or a year plateau is just part of the process.

So maybe the way out of the plateau is to cut calories and fat, on top of the reduction in carbohydrates. Maybe the way out is to cut carbohydrates close to zero and keep fat and protein high. Maybe there's no way out. Again, this is the kind of thing I'd like to see tested. You could take a few dozen individuals who have plateaued on low-carb diets, and put half on, say, diets of only fatty meat and a "hotel portion" of green leafy vegetables -- the diet Pennington prescribed at Dupont in the 50s -- and put the other half on a calorie-restricted low-carb diet and see what happens. (Keeping in mind that we may have to run the test for a few years and do it as a feeding study to get meaningful results.)

(2) While Gary points out that exercise is largely ineffective as a weight control strategy in a "balanced" diet, does that change when you are on a low-carb diet?

In my experience, shifting to a low carb diet transforms exercise from an ineffective strategy to an effective one, particularly weight training. What does he think?

My personal experience is that it doesn't make any difference. Certainly not aerobic exercise. My take on the literature is that it also shouldn't make much difference. I have doubts as well about the benefits of weight training as a weight loss strategy, whether on a low-carb or a balanced diet -- but exercise physiologists whom I respect disagree. Again, this is the kind of thing I'd like to see tested. To the best of my knowledge, it never has been and our anecdotal experiences don't mean much.

Thanks for the thoughtful questions.

He really appreciated your questions, Patrick! Comments?

First off, Jimmy, how freaking awesome is it to get Taubes himself to reply? Is that a common event around here? If so, you should link to them. Where is that search function?

I guess the short answer to both questions is: he thinks neither calorie restriction nor exercise will help much in the long term, regardless of whether you are on a low carb diet, but we need to do more research and it probably partly depends on the person.

Not that this comes close to the value of Taubes responding, but part of question #1 was my own frustration at over-eating and gaining weight during an Atkins induction experiment, particularly after a less stringent low carb diet had been so successful for me for so many years. But I think I may have found the answer.

I just completed day 1 of the new induction experiment. I cut out meat entirely and just went with eggs and cheese. The result was that I only ate 2,200 calories, wasn't especially hungry, and lost 1.5 pounds of water weight between yesterday morning and this morning. In fact, I pretty easily could have kept the day under 2,000 calories by eliminating the end of the day omelet. So far, I have been even less hungry today.

I think what was going on before was that the excessively lean meat I was eating was generating an insulin rush (I could literally see the veins in my arm bulging like they do after a carb load) and also an associated fat craving. The cheese dealt with the fat craving, but at a high caloric price. Meanwhile, I was still left with heightened insulin and ended up getting hungry again in just 90 minutes to 2 hours. A full day of that produced excessive calorie intake and weight gain. That didn't happen this time.

I suspect that for me, lean meat + cheese is a lethal combination. I either need to do all eggs and cheese and no meat (at least not lean meat), or all lean meat and nothing else (still need to test that). I wonder if anyone else has run into this?

Back to Gary: all I can say is, thanks Jimmy for making that happen. P.S. If you ever reach him again, I'd be curious to get his take on protein and associated insulin production. The science definitely says there is an insulin increase associated with protein. Gary responded before that there is also a glucagon increase, but my research on the subject indicated that did not offset the insulin but instead it was what was converting the protein to glucose (step 1) so that insulin could then treat it like any other carb boost (step 2). I would love to get his thoughts, though that may be pushing it.

But the answer to that question is pretty important because it is one thing to say that low-carb diets are effective, but this suggests some answers to *which* kind of low carb diets are most effective. I suspect the answer is low carb and low protein is most effective (not zero protein, though, because everyone probably needs around 50 grams per day to avoid significant muscle loss, which is what you get with fasting). It's the excess protein over and above your needs that get converted to glucose. Anyway, thanks again!

Hogsfan, you're right. Atkins did say that. Good call. Now I am left not getting over excited on my new discovery, which is based on 1 person and 1 day of a repeat induction experiment.

I have a direct line to GT anytime I want it, but I try not to overabuse that privilege since he's gracious with his time and has other things to do beside answer Jimmy Moore all day. Let's see if others can answer your questions Patrick and I'll ask Gary in a couple of weeks if you are not satisfied with the responses. Happy to be of service to you, my friend.

There is a theory of metabolism that I lay out in a short book I wrote called the Yin Yang Factor. It's based on work by nutritionists who are concerned with blood pH and Chinese medicine which recognizes our unique make-up and dietary needs.

Essentially I assert that people can tend toward needing a lower fat, light protein diet (for example eggs and white chicken) or a high fat heavy protein diet (fatty organ meats for example).

Eating the wrong foods stresses your body by making it work overtime to stay in balance. This leads to health issues and weight gain. You stay hungry because your body is not nourished.

Patrick, that might explain why Atkins did not work for you.

Whew!

I had to read that twice. I thought you said, "nutritionists who are concerned with blood pH and cheese." My brain was trying very hard to wrap itself around the blood pH and cheese concept.

Hi Patrick,
Keep in mind that most low carb diets, including Atkins, are actually high fat, moderate protein and low carb. Your 3000cal diet split 60/40 between fat and protein would be about 1200 calories from protein or 300 grams. So I think you are on the right track suspecting protein as the cause of your weight gain.

Regarding glucagon offsetting insulin, regardless of what affect glucagon has on converting protein to glucose it also stimulates the body to release stored fat from fat cells and encourages the body to burn fat. It does not stop doing one thing to do the other. It does both simultaneously, just like insulin simultaneously signals the muscles to store glucose and signals fat cells to store fat. The fat cells react to the presence of insulin and/or glucagon in the blood regardless of what may be happening to protein or glucose in the cells of other organs.

Boo

I have been wondering about this subject recently and am glad to see Taubes address it. I may not like his response, as it's not what I want to hear, but I understand it.

(03-09-2009 08:51 PM)Jimmy Moore Wrote:  Okay, Patrick, here's Gary Taubes' response to your questions:

(1) Once you are on a low carb diet, do calories (and dietary fat consumption) matter?

[Taubes]: In my experience, they do. It appears that the higher one's intake of dietary fat, the lower the level of body fat burned off. This becomes more obvious the lower one's level of obesity (i.e., the obese can consume more fat and still lose weight, but as they lose weight there is a point below which this is no longer true). In my view, this explains some of the plateau issues that some people run into on low carb diets, and also suggests that to achieve optimal weight, at some point you need to add calorie and fat restriction on top of the low carb diet. What is his read?

This brings up a few points. Here's one: let's say you've plateaued, but now you want to cut carbohydrates as low as possible while keeping your total calories constant. To do so, you'll have to increase fat or protein content to compensate -- remember diet is a trade-off in this sense. You might increase both. You're likely to increase fat more. So in this scenario, fat intake goes up and weight probably comes down.

You're giving us another scenario: you plateau, cut calories and fat while calories from carbs remain low and constant. Now its possible this will lower weight further, but it raises the question of what is an ideal weight, and whether anyone will be able to keep this up. Remember, the idea is that your appetite is theoretically matched to your metabolic needs. If carbs are driving calories into your fat tissue, you consume more calories to make up the difference and keep the rest of your body adequately surprised. Now if you cut calories beneath what you're comfortable eating, you'll be hungry -- by definition -- and your metabolism might slow as a response to the reduction in energy supply. So, yes, you might lose a few more pounds, just as you would on any semi-starvation diet, but you'd do so at the cost of decreased energy and increased hunger. This is all speculation and it would be nice to test it to see if I'm right.

Now, back to the issue of optimal weight. In the book, I phrase my conclusions, as I do most everything else, pretty carefully. So I say "the less carbohydrates consumed, the leaner we will be," but I do not say we'll be as lean as we might like -- what I think you're describing as optimal weight. It seems likely to me that those prediposed to be very fat -- in other words, those that are the most sensitive to carbohydrates in the diet -- and those individuals who have been very fat for a long time will have trouble reversing this process entirely; that there is chronic damage done by the diets they've been consuming.

Thus, the leanest they'll be will be on the diet with the least carbohydrates, but that may still not be lean. They may lose 50 or 100 pounds and have another 40 or 50 to go, but weight loss stops because their fat tissue is so exceedingly sensitive to insulin that even the whiff of a taint of a carbohydrate in the diet will lock up fat and keep it there. Again, this may or may not be the case, but my reading of the literature suggests it is. Had they grown up in a world without refined carbs and sugars, they might have always been relatively lean. Having eaten diets high in refined carbs and sugars for a few decades, though, it's possible that they may never undo all the damage done, only some of it. It's also possible that it could take years or decades to do it, and that a six month plateau or a year plateau is just part of the process.

So maybe the way out of the plateau is to cut calories and fat, on top of the reduction in carbohydrates. Maybe the way out is to cut carbohydrates close to zero and keep fat and protein high. Maybe there's no way out. Again, this is the kind of thing I'd like to see tested. You could take a few dozen individuals who have plateaued on low-carb diets, and put half on, say, diets of only fatty meat and a "hotel portion" of green leafy vegetables -- the diet Pennington prescribed at Dupont in the 50s -- and put the other half on a calorie-restricted low-carb diet and see what happens. (Keeping in mind that we may have to run the test for a few years and do it as a feeding study to get meaningful results.)

(2) While Gary points out that exercise is largely ineffective as a weight control strategy in a "balanced" diet, does that change when you are on a low-carb diet?

In my experience, shifting to a low carb diet transforms exercise from an ineffective strategy to an effective one, particularly weight training. What does he think?

[Taubes]: My personal experience is that it doesn't make any difference. Certainly not aerobic exercise. My take on the literature is that it also shouldn't make much difference. I have doubts as well about the benefits of weight training as a weight loss strategy, whether on a low-carb or a balanced diet -- but exercise physiologists whom I respect disagree. Again, this is the kind of thing I'd like to see tested. To the best of my knowledge, it never has been and our anecdotal experiences don't mean much.

Thanks for the thoughtful questions.

Patrick, I am like you. I found that after I lost my 80 pounds and achieved the weight I wanted to be, I was unable to sustain that weight loss without watching my calories as well as my carbs. I just kept regaining. I have finally found that if I eat less than 1500 calories a day (cutting fat of course) I do not gain. If I eat more than 1800 calories, I tend to gain the weight back . This, of course, was not the advice I received from most low carbers who, like Dr Eades kept saying that if you keep your carbs down you can't gain. Well I can.

Taubes has given us a very good start on a literature review of the current research on diet. We don't have the comparative studies he keeps asking for. The questions you ask are better answered by research and not by speculation. Keep asking, maybe someone will fund the research to answer your questions.

Thank you so very much for all the discussion re: the book.
I know I will buy it now.
Next to "The End of Overeating" by Dr. David Kessler, I believe Good Calories, Bad Calories may become my second favorite book!
But, I almost forgot "When Food is Love" by Geneen Roth....
then the old--no longer in print---"Listen to the Hunger".

Thank you all, so very much!

Amen, Benay, Amen!

As much as I love Taubes' book, I have learned that there is no cookie-cutter approach to losing fat, as over the past month, I have limited my carbs to 10-15 per day, have not cheated, yet my results have been almost dismal.

My start weight was 345 (with a goal to lose 170 lbs). First week's loss was about 11 lbs (great!), 2nd week was 2 lbs, 3rd week was zero (ouch!), 4th week was 2 lbs. Now, I am a big boy and had expected to lose 5, 6, 7, even 10 lbs per week, given my starting weight. But, that's just not the way it worked out. I understand that carbs drives insulin which drives fat and calories should not really matter, but every Sunday morning, when I weighed myself, I was in shock at the lack of results.

I asked myself what would I change? I could exercise more (and I will), but there really is nothing food-wise to give up, as I don't eat sugar, bread, potatoes, rice, etc. I only eat very low-carb veges (radishes, celery, cucumber, etc) and in low quantities. Even meat, I have eaten in smaller amounts. I even use small plates!

Yet, a zero-pound week, or a couple 2-pound weeks, is just not working for me. I told my mother, today, that the only thing I can do is eat less calories. I still intend to keep my plan low-carb/high-fat, but also to keep it at 1,500 calories.

So, I think you are exactly right!

(01-10-2010 07:01 PM)Benay Wrote:  Patrick, I am like you. I found that after I lost my 80 pounds and achieved the weight I wanted to be, I was unable to sustain that weight loss without watching my calories as well as my carbs. I just kept regaining. I have finally found that if I eat less than 1500 calories a day (cutting fat of course) I do not gain. If I eat more than 1800 calories, I tend to gain the weight back . This, of course, was not the advice I received from most low carbers who, like Dr Eades kept saying that if you keep your carbs down you can't gain. Well I can.

Taubes has given us a very good start on a literature review of the current research on diet. We don't have the comparative studies he keeps asking for. The questions you ask are better answered by research and not by speculation. Keep asking, maybe someone will fund the research to answer your questions.

Mark,
Why in the world did you think you would lose 10 pounds a week? Alot of the biggest loser contestants don't even lose that much and they are working out 6-8 hours a day on a crash diet. You could probably do that too if you were willing to workout that much, but you aren't working out anywhere near that, you are eating as much as you want, and you still have lost 15 pounds this month! That's great! I really don't think you have a problem other than expectations.

You are doing so great! 15 pounds in a month is wonderful! I'm very happy for you, man!

(01-25-2010 02:43 AM)Hogsfan Wrote:  Mark,
Why in the world did you think you would lose 10 pounds a week?

I admit my original expectations were high; however, 2 pounds a week, or ZERO pounds per week is NOT okay, as even Jimmy lost 30 lbs the first month and 40 pounds the second month. Yes, he weighed about 75 pounds more than I at the beginning, the first 100 pounds (or so) should be "melting off".

Well, I still think you are doing a great job.

One thing to remember is that by the time Jimmy got down to about what you weigh, his weight loss slowed down a lot. He lost 100 pounds (down to 310) the first 3 months, but the other 80 took 9 months. That's right at 2 pounds a week and during that time the man was basically married to the eleptical machine. The other thing to remember is that Jimmy's weight loss was exceptional. His story is for inspirational, not comparision purposes.

Also, regarding your stall...if you'll look around on weight loss boards you'll find that a HUGE number of people stall out in the 3-4th week. It's not that the diet isn't working, it's that your hydration levels start to even out. That 11 pounds you lost the first week wasn't all fat, some of it was water. In week 3-4 the water comes back (like it's supposed to). You most likely lost 3 pounds of fat and gained three pounds of water. This registers as a zero on the scale but in reality it's an wonderful improvement. This "stall" probably isn't a stall at all.

One of the problems with diets in general is expectations. Diet books want to put their best foot forward so they use some of their best weight loss stories to inspire you. We read about them and think "That could be me" even though that person is by definition an outlier or else they wouldn't have been used in the book. Combine that with the fact that most people on message boards talk about HUGE losses their first few weeks and then rarely talk about their tougher weeks and it creates these expectations that aren't based in reality.

There is a popular low carb site that did an unofficial study and found that low carbers over time actually lose around 2.25-7.25 pounds a month. You may look at that and say "That sucks" but the truth is that this is how this actually plays out in practice with real people. In a head-to-head match up with any other diet plan in real life with real people over time (months and months), and I think that would look pretty impressive. When you adjust your expecations around that, it seems pretty clear you are kicking butt this month.

(01-25-2010 11:32 AM)Hogsfan Wrote:  Well, I still think you are doing a great job.

Thank you. It's nice to hear.

Quote:One thing to remember is that by the time Jimmy got down to about what you weigh, his weight loss slowed down a lot. He lost 100 pounds (down to 310) the first 3 months, but the other 80 took 9 months. That's right at 2 pounds a week and during that time the man was basically married to the eleptical machine. The other thing to remember is that Jimmy's weight loss was exceptional. His story is for inspirational, not comparision purposes.

It is exceptional, as I have not often read it; however, although mathematically it works out to 2 lbs per week, the largest loss was in the beginning... and that is what concerns me, as my beginning losses have been paltry, even a zero-loss week. That just should not be.

Also, regarding your stall...if you'll look around on weight loss boards you'll find that a HUGE number of people stall out in the 3-4th week. It's not that the diet isn't working, it's that your hydration levels start to even out. That 11 pounds you lost the first week wasn't all fat, some of it was water. In week 3-4 the water comes back (like it's supposed to). You most likely lost 3 pounds of fat and gained three pounds of water. This registers as a zero on the scale but in reality it's an wonderful improvement. This "stall" probably isn't a stall at all.

Quote:One of the problems with diets in general is expectations. When you adjust your expecations around that, it seems pretty clear you are kicking butt this month.

Absolutely true; however, having had a zero-loss week tells me that something is wrong, despite eating very low-carb and not cheating at all. Also, I do look at other people's weight losses and find that it can be "all over the board". There is no exact method, no perfect amount, but when you get no results at all (my mother has lost nothing over the past two weeks), you can only use the "I'm holding water" theory for so long.

Lastly, from Gary Taubes' perspective, with the absence of carbs, insulin lowers, and thus fat should be mobilizing out of the body. Even if scale weight is untrustworthy, body measurements should give more of a clue as to what's going on. I have, thankfully, lost a little bit here-and-there, but like everybody else, it still is that reading that I see when I weigh myself on Sunday morning that really matters.

Just to play devils advocate, you've only had 1 week where you didn't lose. You told me, "you can only use the "I'm Holding Water" theory for so long.

My question would be to flip it. Mark, how long do you think the "I'm holding water" theory would be reasonable. It's gotta be at least a week...which is all you've seen of it? Right? You just told me you are seeing losses here-and-there from body measurements? right? You sound like holding water is EXACTLY what is happening. I guarantee you Gary Taubes would tell you to be patient with the process while your body heals itself.

I promise you Mark that if you don't get your head wrapped around the idea that 1-2 pounds a week is a GREAT weight loss, you are going to become impatient with the process. I'm not saying you shouldn't limit your calories. By all means, if that's what you feel like is the next step. This is a LONG road ahead and you'll do plenty of experimenting figuring out what works for you...but I hope you recognize how well you are doing so far and don't miss out on the journey because you are so excited about where you need to go.

This is going to take time. In 1-2 years, you are going to look up and either be glad you were patient with your body or wish you would have been. You are off to a great start and I'm very happy for you.

Thank you for all posts and links!