The FastDay Forum

It's probably true that the biggest advantage of the Atkins diet is the voluntary reduction in calorie intake from reduced hunger and restricted food choices.

There are studies that show ad lib dietary intake to be lower in low carb groups compared to others. In RCTs low carb wins in about 18 studies and draws in some but seldom loses.

The higher protein is part of the story - requiring more energy to be expended in digestion / processing. There may be other differences in pathways and efficiencies too - diesel engines are higher efficiency than petrol irrespective of fuel calorific value. I'm also suspicious of how rounded the calories per gram values are !

Having said all that the current Atkins scientists do agree that a calorie deficit is required - you won't lose on 6000 cals of coconut oil !

To be honest tomtank I don't believe it, and if it is true I would be interested to know more. (I don't mean that Dr Atkins didn't say it, only that it didn't happen that way.) I thought it was generally accepted that, whatever may have originally been claimed, the Atkins diet worked by calorie restriction - when people cut out carbs they just couldn't eat so much. I know it worked that way for me.

If it is true, how does it work? Where does all the energy go?

The theory is that it takes the body twice the energy to process protein as it does carbs so the body has to work harder on protein therefore expending much more energy eating protein than the same amount of calories on carbs

This guy, Dr. John Briffa, explains the benefits of following a low-carb regime.

www.drbriffa.com

In that case then we should start believing the theory about negative calories too...

Can I ask you something? If that is the case with protein then why I am full on a fast day with 500 calories of carbs and today that I'm eating protein only I will need at least 1200 calories to feel just not very much hungry???

I don't know - I'm the opposite. A high protein/fat meal, such as a omelette cooked in butter, and I'm full all morning. Some bread, or worse, something sweet, and I'm going up the wall, eating everything in sight, and get the shakes. I cant stick to low-carb, because of the problems of eating out, and eating on the hoof, but I feel so much better when I do, and always satiated

When I fast, I eat oatmeal with veggies for both lunch and breaky and rice cakes with turkey ham and porridge in between. I easily stay within 500 calories and I'm not really hungry.

Today and yesterday I did the attack phase of Dukan, which is protein only. Yesterday I had 804 calories and I was starving late in the night. Today I had 1151 and I'm fine, so far. But that's the double calories of a fast day...

I quite honestly recently started 5:2 but had already lost 40 lbs in 4 months by just watching bad carbs and not worrying about calories at all. Also had so much energy. I believe eating just low carb(atkins) is not sustainable (I tried it and lost alot of weight a lnong time ago but gained it all back), but follow more of the slow carb plan now (South Beach Diet). I think there is truth to this about the overall calories do not matter as much as the quality but I don't understand all the science/logic of it (And I am an analytical/math guy). But if you are eating all the protein and fat and only high quality carb(veggies, fruit and whole grain) then I agree that it is hard to go over your TDEE because you feel very full usually. Its the simple carbs eaten with those other things that leave you hungry again relatively soon. So now when I learned about 5:2 I started panicking about calories again, which kind of stinks. My first fast was easy because I had already gotton past the insulin resistence sugar craving pasrt months prior. In any case I am doing a combo of the 2, not really counting my calories on feed days, but avoiding bad carbs to a dgree(But I am bit more lax about it), and I am losing well over 2 lbs a week on that plan, whereas before adding 5:2, I was about 1.2-1.5lbs loss per week.

Hi all,

A different take on the calorie can be listened to here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/foodprog/all, this programme puts the Dreaded C-word in some perspective. You need to scroll down a bit to find the correct episode, which can be downloaded onto your i-pods or -pads or whatever these contraptions are called. The same page (site?) contains interesting downloads on fermentation, kefir, yoghurt, agricultural policies and the like. Enjoy!

What is the date/name of the actual episode on that page as I looked and looked but could not find it

One of the most important considerations, when following a low-carb diet, is the health benefits.

Most new cases of type-2 diabetes could be avoided, if people consumed much lower levels of carbs.

In a way, it is a shame that we are not encouraged to eat in this way, on non-fasting days.

Sugar is a proven killer, and yet it is acceptable on this eating plan.

It would help prevent a whole host of diseases if people eliminated it from their diets.

I know that people are losing weight despite eating it, but how we eat should be keeping us healthy overall, and not just be a way of losing pounds.

I have a feeling that many people say carbs and mean white bread, sugar and pizza and they forget the carbs are also wholewheat pasta, brown rice, fruit, vegetables, grains...
It would be a shame if someone encouraged us to not eat all these!!!

Izzy, I agree 100% with you. It's one thing to do what is better for you and another to condemn an entire food group just because one or two parts of this group are bad for you.
If it wasn't for carbs, I wouldn't be able to do 5:2 at all (my stomach is protesting after 2 days of no carbs and I thought that I was doing so well but it's only for 2 days) and -most importantly- if it wasn't for carbs I'd probably have to have surgery a few years back when I had a very serious stomach problem.

Anyway, the most important thing for all of us is to remember that -as I mentioned before- carbs means a LOT of things and not just sugar and pasta and... everything in moderation.

TML13. You are quite right when you say an entire food group shouldn't be eliminated, when some parts are perfectly healthy.

I was really referring to white carbs, although even something like too much fruit can induce weight gain.

On Atkins, I eat meat, fish, dairy, fruit and veg. It is a fallacy that very few, or no carbs at all, are allowed.

Izzy is right, too, when she says that a lot of people here have lost vast amounts of weight, which can only improve their health.

My thinking is, though, that for ultimate health, we should restrict our carb intake.

Even very slim people can develop type-2 diabetes, if they are consuming too much sugar etc.

I live in a country where people ate mostly carbs and until the western way of eating was introduced, there was no sign of obesity and problems such as blood sugar, diabetes and cholesterol were from rare to non-existent. In fact, they used herbs to lower cholesterol because even those who had high cholesterol it was something like 5 points above normal.
It will take much convincing that carbs are to blame for obesity entering Greece and so far I haven't seen much proof. IMO, it's the consuming of stuff like burgers, pizza, soft drinks, desserts with too much sugar, butter etc which caused this problem and not the carbs.
Carbs were always eaten and were never held responsible for health problems because health problems which are now considered the fault of carbs weren't a... problem for Greeks in the decades before 2000.

Sugar is a carbohydrate, pizza dough is carbs, so are burger buns, soft drinks with calories are carb solutions.