Carb Counters - Excess fat on the body comes from excess CALORIES

Could someone really explain low carb diets to me? What's the difference what my body uses as fuel? EXCESS FAT COMES FROM EXCESS CALORIES. Say I eat a 100 calorie cookie and then I don't know, sit for an hour. Just as an example. So yeah, my body burns the sugar from the cookie for that hour (just pretend that's what my body uses to survive, 100 calories an hour, for the sake of example). Instead, say I eat a chicken drumstick (or about 100 calories of protein). My body needs, hypothetically, 100 calories for the next hour, still, right? So WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE really?????? MY BODY IS NOT GOING TO START BURNING FAT EITHER WAY UNLESS I EAT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT IT NEEDS FOR WHATEVER ACTIVITY IT'S DOING (or if none, just to stay alive) and it's going to burn it at the same rate. Does protein raise your metabolism?? No, in fact CARBS raise your metabolism.

Really, I just don't understand this whole thing. My body doesn't start burning fat because it's going into ketosis. On the contrary, I go into ketosis simply because I'M EATING FAT. But who cares? Ketosis has nothing to do with fat loss, or if it does, I don't understand why. If I don't restrict my calories, it's not going to use the fat in my body as fuel, it's still just using my food, which is useless if I want it to use the fat on my BODY -- and the only way my body will do that is if it DOESN'T GET ENOUGH CALORIES FROM FOOD -- ANY TYPE OF FOOD.

If you only eat fat and protein then your body starts making glucouse out of the fat instead of the carbs.

It has a transition period of a couple of days while the body uses up the stored carbs,
If you eat fat and protein the body will continue to consume fat. And if you does´nt eat it it will take it from the best source of nutrition that is... your body fat.

Someone who eats only fat and proteins does´nt eat as much as someone who adds carbs since fat get you full and keep you there for hours.

I hope I´m making my self understood... I so need to practise my english ;)

Carbs and proteins each hold 4 calories while fat have 9 calories/gram

Seems kinda wise for the body to go for the one that gives it more energy :) Right?

It starts making glucose out of the fat you eat, not the fat in your body, UNLESS you just aren't eating enough. But that happens no matter WHAT you eat. The only thing that will make your body go to your fat deposits is a CALORIE DEFICIT. If you're getting energy (=calories) from food, no matter WHAT form it's in originally, your body HAS NO REASON TO GO TO YOUR FAT DEPOSITS.

Why are you yelling?

Ok I will repeat myself :)


Someone who eats only fat and proteins does´nt eat as much as someone who adds carbs since fat get you full and keep you there for hours.

Why are you yelling?

Because I'm SO frustrated about my weight. I have tried every diet known to man on top of the fact that when not dieting, I don't overeat more than once a week, and then only to a "reasonable" extent -- in other words, not a whole big serving of something at a diner AND dessert, or a pint of ice cream or box of cookies, but maybe a hamburger with the bun with a side of slaw, or ONE slice of pizza at lunch, or something... my calorie intake is usually around 1,000, and it will go over 1,500 once in a while and not much over!! Yes, I've tried eating more in case my body was low metabolism cause it needed more calories. I GAIN WEIGHT. I'VE TRIED IT ALL -- VEGAN, Weight Watchers, rice diet, Somersizing, slow carb, writing down my intake .. I go by the book but the book doesn't help me. There have been only three things that have ever caused weightloss for me --

1) My oatmeal and chicken "diet", my own system when I had very little money but didn't want to give up on trying to lose weight. NOT brown rice, whole grain breads and beans. I lose no weight when I eat those. Problem here is obvious: who wants to eat just those two for the rest of their lives? Plus, when I went on an antidepressant, it stopped working anyway and that's the real reason I stopped -- the scale started going up anyway.

2) My own "cabbage soup" diet inspired system. The soup doesn't sound good, so I figured it would be the same if I ate just the vegetables alone, not all together in a soup. What it amounts to is

a. four days of the week you either either/and ONLY fruit and vegetables. Obviously anyone would lose weight on that.
b. the other days you eat an extremely controlled diet that really does seem to work with the other four days.

I guess I'm just doomed to eat one of those two ways, or combine them, for the rest of my life. Oh yes and I forgot to mention, I'm not sure if it was the antidepressant that made me start gaining back or the fact that it made me so tired I didn't take my 3/wk one hour walk. I'm off them though anyway.

I haven't gotten to the gist of your question really though, but this was necessary background. I'm yelling because there is no miracle in the diets and I resent everyone saying there is when there is no truth behind it. The truth is somewhere, obviously, but no one's really come up with it yet. To me, it's clearly genetic. Some people really eat a lot, don't do much exercise, and don't gain an ounce, some people gain weight just by breathing -- me. Some people do gain weight when they eat a lot -- those are the ones who lose weight when they go on a "diet" -- but it could be ANY diet that RESTRICTS THEIR CALORIES PAST THE POINT OF THEIR TOLERANCE, which is HIGH. I'm not sure why oatmeal works when brown rice doesn't for me, and no one explains that. And I have no idea why calorie restriction alone doesn't work for me. In fact, I'm sort of leaning towards the idea that it doesn't really matter what I eat if I get in one hour of walking EVERY DAY in, even though somehow last week I gained THREE POUNDS while I did two hours I haven't been doing at all. I didn't have a scale when I did that cabbage soup thing so I don't know, I do think I lost more, but I only lost ONE POUND A MONTH on the oatmeal thing and I was walking 3/week for an hour. The only reason I kept it up was because, as I said, I was low on money so I figured this was the cheapest I could eat healthy anyway, whether I lost any weight or not.

Well that's just a matter of taste, not science. I would prefer to eat a 300 calorie muffin than three eggs for breakfast. I will be hungry at lunch both ways.

Ok I will repeat myself :)


Someone who eats only fat and proteins does´nt eat as much as someone who adds carbs since fat get you full and keep you there for hours.

Have you been to your doc to see if you have a medical reason that your body metabolism is slower than normal?

Well that's just a matter of taste, not science. I would prefer to eat a 300 calorie muffin than three eggs for breakfast. I will be hungry at lunch both ways.

No it´s not. If I eat a 300 cal muffin I´ll be hungry again in less than an hour. If I eat a bacon and scrambled egg breakfast I´ll stay full a bit after lunch... Its actually hard to eat lunch...

So I do´nt... I eat when I´m hungry. I eat until I´m content with my meal and then I stop. And repeat over the day. Sometimes I eat 4 times a day and sometimes I eat 2. But I´m happy! I feel great and it works for me.

This lifestyle got the doctor who came up with it (I am talking sweden) fired because it went against all "proven" science... Well.. It works and now everybody is getting on the fatty train...

Get checked out by a doctor. And then... Why not try this for a couple of months? Cut away all carbs. Only eat veggis that grow on the surface... no potato, carrot and so on.
Eat a lot of fat. It is good for you.. And you need to replace the carbs with something.

I know that it sucks... I had surgery because I colud not loose weight. And then, of course... gained it all back but now I`m back on track and feeling good.

The calories in/calories out model, isn't perfect. For one thing calories are a unit of energy, thermal energy or "burnability" to think of them in other terms. Cellulose (plant fiber) has calories, but you could eat 5000 calories of hay or wood and wouldn't gain an ounce, because humans can't digest cellulose. So a calorie isn't always a calorie for weight loss purposes, because sometimes there are calories that aren't useable.

There are other theories about ways in which a calorie isn't always a calorie (as described in various diet books, especially those regarding low carb lifestyles).

I'm not confident in the truth of many of these theories, but I have found some personal truths through my own experimentation. On 1800 calories of high carb foods, I lose very slowly (crazy slow for a person of my weight). On 1800 calories of extremely low carb eating (Atkins induction level of 20g of carbs or less), I lose weight much more rapidly, but feel terrible and have blood sugar drops severe enough that I feel like passing out. On 1800 calories of a relatively low carb diet I can reach the balance of feeling decent and yet losing consistently.

I don't know all of the reasons, but it's not as simple as calories in/out. In addition to a food log, I also kept a symptoms log - and can say that high carb eating, especially with processed foods I was hungrier and yet exhausted all of the time. I slept more (but not as well) and exercise seemed out of the question because of the exhaustion. The hunger was crazy, especially for cravings of more junk. On the extremely low carb eating, I was never hungry (miraculous for me), in fact often somewhat nauseous, and while I'd have bursts of energy and could exercise (at least if timed closely after eating), I had headaches, frequent insomnia, and blood sugar drops that would make me feel dizzy or faint. On the right level of carbs, I can lose weight gradually, but consistently, have energy for exercise, reasonably control hunger and feel my best overall.

I'm not saying that any of the above is true for anyone other than me, and maybe a few other folks. I also don't know what about me makes the above true. I have several health issues that probably contribute. I'm insulin resistant and have the combination of health issues doctors refer to as metabolic syndrome or syndrome x. I've been told by several doctors now, that for the insulin syndrome especially, lower carb dieting tends to be more effective for weight loss. I don't know whether it's me or the medication I'm on that makes me sick on very low carb. I am taking metformin (which helps control blood sugar), and that may be one of the reasons I can't go "too low" carb. I also have fibromyalgia, and there's some evidence (and a lot of patient reports) that high carb, especially high grain diets seem to aggravate the symptoms of fibro (definitely true for me). If all I worried about was weight loss, I would aim for no more than 20g of carbs a day. I would lose 5 lbs a week, but I'd feel like fainting or puking most of the time, and I'd be unable to sleep and have more pain and brain fog from the fibro.

What does any of that have to do with you?

Maybe absolutely nothing, but it seems to me that you're arguing that low carb diets aren't effective - if that's true for you, then don't use them. Trial and error, and a whole lot of reading on the subject has proven to me that for me there is a big difference, and one more important to me than rate of weight loss, is that of feeling good and hunger control. If I eat too many carbs (especially if they're processed carbs, but even small chain "healthy" carbs like high sugar fruits or starchy veggies) I get a hunger, I can only describe as crazy. Even after eating until physically full, I still feel a drive to eat more - I literally feel starved, especially for more carbs.

I'm not saying it's a universal experience, in fact, there seems to be a lot of evidence that while my experience is common, it isn't universal. There do seem to be people whose hunger is not affected appreciably by the source of calories - if that is you, more power to you. But for me, the distinction is so remarkable, that to feel my best and lose weight, I can't afford to include many simple or short chain carbohydrates (easily digestible carbs) into my diet, at this point.

Well that's just a matter of taste, not science. I would prefer to eat a 300 calorie muffin than three eggs for breakfast. I will be hungry at lunch both ways.

No it´s not. If I eat a 300 cal muffin I´ll be hungry again in less than an hour.

Well, not me. What I'm saying is, if it's a matter of how much you eat, why don't they just admit that?

P.S. I think I see that all of you understand this, but I'm not a skinny minny crazy to lose 5 pounds. I mean, in all honesty, I probably was at some stage in my 20s. Although no, not a skinny minny or someone who could eat anything she wanted. I've gained 3 lbs a year always watching what I eat -- and at 48, it makes a BIG difference. I'm 5'2" and 180 lbs -- up from 177 just last week, don't exactly know how, I guess it is those antidepressants after all -- I'm back on them -- really, only the past 3 years, on and off a lot of diets, so that's just part of it. Some people were just not made by god to be slender, it is starting to seem like -- and I am yelling because I wish, I WISH there was a different answer. The only one would be exercising all day. But not in diet. Unless of course one is just eating too many calories with junk food.

Kaplods just explained my thoughts exactly.

You arent going to find what works for you overnight. It takes a lot of trial and error and tweaking. I too feel best with moderate carbs, higher fats and protein. But 6 months into maintenence and I'm still learning, still messing up, but also still doing a lot of things right. It gets a lot easier over time, but it's never effortless.

Try looking at the book called "Intuitive Eating".

and I am yelling because I wish, I WISH there was a different answer.I understand your frustration, but yelling at people here who are just trying to help you is not going to give you the answers you want. We can only share what works for us.

Well, not me. What I'm saying is, if it's a matter of how much you eat, why don't they just admit that?


I think the answer to the "why don't they just admit that, " is there is no "that" to admit. There is no single answer that works for everyone. Some folks (like me) have found that it is NOT only a matter of how much we eat. I was as shocked as anyone could be that I actually lost more weight on 1800 calories of low carb than I did on 1800 calories of high carb - because I thought that the only, or at least primary reason I was losing more on low carb diets was because I was much less hungry and eating much less (which in itself would have been a great reason to stick with low carb eating).

I've found out a lot of things about how my body reacts to certain foods and combination/ratio of nutients. I've read alot, and have some theories of my own as to why some folks share certain traits when it comes to hunger/food and it's relationship to health.

We're still in the infancy of weight loss research. Far too many researchers are still looking for the single best diet for weight loss, or a weight loss strategy that will work for everyone (and not just in the lab, but in their daily lives) - and I think they're not finding answers, because they're not asking the right questions - it's like trying to find a cure for all headaches regardless of the cause, whether it be allergies, flu, sinus infection, blow to the head, or brain tumor.

I don't think all weight gain has the same cause, and I don't think all weight loss can be achieved by the same means.

What I'm saying is, if it's a matter of how much you eat, why don't they just admit that?


I think the answer to the "why don't they just admit that, " is there is no "that" to admit. There is no single answer that works for everyone. Some folks (like me) have found that it is NOT only a matter of how much we eat. I was as shocked as anyone could be that I actually lost more weight on 1800 calories of low carb than I did on 1800 calories of high carb - because I thought that the only, or at least primary reason I was losing more on low carb diets was because I was much less hungry and eating much less (which in itself would have been a great reason to stick with low carb eating).

I've found out a lot of things about how my body reacts to certain foods and combination/ratio of nutients. I've read alot, and have some theories of my own as to why some folks share certain traits when it comes to hunger/food and it's relationship to health, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that we are not all the same regarding what works for us, either physically or psychologically or some combination of the two.

We're still in the infancy of weight loss research. Far too many researchers are still looking for the single best diet for weight loss, or a weight loss strategy that will work for everyone (and not just in the lab, but in peoples' daily lives) - and I think they're not finding answers, because they're not asking the right questions - it's like trying to find a cure for all headaches regardless of the cause, whether it be allergies, flu, sinus infection, blow to the head, or brain tumor.

I don't think all weight gain has the same cause, and I don't think all weight loss can be achieved by the same means.

The methods you describe being the only effective for you, are quite obviously unhealthy (very restrictive and not nutritionally, very sound - all quite extreme). This raises a couple concerns for me (none may be true, but I'll share for what it's worth).

The first being that you may have an underlying metabolism problem, either of insulin resistance, thyroid, or perhaps other hormonal or metabolic issue. You may be failing to lose, except by extreme measures because of an underlying medical issue. A checkup would be ideal to rule this out, if you haven't already.

My second concern is that these are all extremely low calorie "crash" diets, and it makes me wonder how you are defining successful weight loss. Although I am still far over 300 lbs, I cannot lose very quickly without making myself ill. In fact, I only lost 40 lbs last year, so on average less than one lb per week - that's a loss of only .2% of my body weight per week. I'm hoping to lose more this year, but I'm still counting myself successful. I wouldn't argue that it's the right or best rate of loss for anyone, even myself - but what is your difinition of success? Are you expecting, perhaps unreasonable results?

And thirdly, although many "all you can eat" diets do result in weight loss for some (maybe even many or most) folks, calorie restriction is a necessary component for many, if not most. The idea that you can eat 10,000 calories and still lose weight, as long as you're only eating meat and fat, doesn't seem very reasonable to me. That doesn't mean that changing your carb/protein/fat ration can't be of some benefit. Although I have found restricting carbs to be helpful, I use an exchange plan to force some balance and to control calories (I adapted a low carb exchange plan I found on the hillbillyhousewife website). Or calorie counting, but finding and restricting the foods that you find trigger overeating, or adversely affect your weight loss rate or how you feel.

Much has been made in weight loss articles about the "safe" rate of weight loss 1/2 to 1% of your body weight per week (so for you that would be what 1 or 2 lbs per week). This is not at all to say that this is a typical rate of weight loss. The idea that most people (even gigantic folks like me) DO lose 1 to 2 lbs, is actually quite false. My doctor set me straight when I was complaining that I was losing so slow and he said that even at my size, a consistent loss of 1/4 of a lb per week was more than MOST folks accomplish for a variety of reasons. Some being the simple fact of not giving up, but also the fact that some bodies just do not pull big numbers. When you lose 1/4 of a pound per week, do you consider that failure or success?

I know it's frustrating, but keep experimenting and finding out the factors that are your personal secrets to success. Part of it is being patient and consistent. Anything you try, you've got to give at least a good 6 week trial to have any idea whether it might be a good choice for you or not. It can be a chore, but keeping a food log (and ideally a log of things like mood, energy level, exercise and how much, sleep and how much....) can help you discover some of the patterns that will help you succeed.

It is frustrating, but you have to be your own scientist and lab rat to find the path for you.

My thyroid checks normal. I really don't know about hormones. I know there's doctors who deal with both, but I really can't afford them. I also figure that it would take a clear medical condition to affect weightloss, and I'm not even sure that's been proven -- except for extreme thyroid conditions.

I'm encouraged by your admitting you only lose 1/4 lb a week. No, when everyone calls 1-2 lbs/wk SLOW, safe weightloss, it does not seem like success. However if I could eat a variety of food that would result in it, I would stick to that. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case, and even certain strong restrictions -- like low carb -- don't do anything for me. When someone tells me they lost more weight eating 1800 calories low carb than 1800 calories high carb, I believe that. I believe that each body is different, but no one really knows why -- I mean, there's even a blood type diet (not sure what that one is) -- and there's just so many different diets out there for this very reason -- some just don't work on some people!! In fact, there's so many diets because in fact none of them work on most people, if you see what I mean. If there were one that were broadly successful, most people would just do that. The one that comes closest to that seems to be Atkins, so the fact that I can't get it to work for me, along with hardly anything else, and the fact that there's no real science behind any of these plans, but there purports to be, is a real source of frustration.

Thanks for your reply.

Your frustration jumps off the page!

I was on a plateau in 2008 for six months and have dealt with depression in the past. I lost 85 pounds when I was taking antidepressants in '03. I used low carb both times.

I too got caught in the negativity of looking at other people and comparing. Believe me that is so wasted energy!

No one has asked your activity level. Are you doing walking? Or? I used to think I was slow metabolically until I kept researching and tweaking my way of eating and living. I am now at goal from a combination of walking six miles daily and low carb. This may never work for you and you may continue to struggle but think about fitness as more than just weight loss. Becoming active helped me get off the medication and thus sped up the loss.

When I was struggling in '08 a friend suggested that some people are born to be fat. She even sent links about set points and British research on mice. I refused to believe it because when I was younger I was fit and slimmer.

:goodluck: and I hope you either find something that works or find peace being fitter and stronger.

There is some very good science in the field of weight loss, but it can get lost in the shuffle, and be difficult to sort through if you don't have a research background. Even with a master's degree in psychology and a fair number of research methodology classes under my belt, it can be difficult to make sense of any of the research unless I read the weight loss studies themselves (and often the research is pretty dry, so not the most fun read). By the time it's trickled down to books and weight loss articles, most of the science has fallen out. What I mean by that, is you don't get the facts, you don't even get the researchers' conclusions, you get someone's understanding (which may not be very good) of what the study's conclusions mean. And often, when you go back to the original research you wonder how on earth the person thought the study proved what they think it proved.

There are also TONS of books that are based on bad science or no science.
One thing I've found helpful, because there is so much MISinformation out there, is to go to textbooks rather than popular mainstream books and articles, because when it comes to the books written for the mainstream is that some of these authors are really good at making their theories SOUND like good science, when they're at best, guesses. The fact sadly is, that health, particularly weight loss books sell not based on whether the theory is sound and supported by fact, but by the promises the author makes - and the more outrageous the claim, the more likely the book is to sell. Sadly, the buying public (as indicated by sales) don't wan't reasonable fact-based advice - they want the promise of dramatic and immediate results. The more outrageous the theory, the better the book sells. The truth, that weight loss is often difficult, a matter of trial and error, and ideally SLOW doesn't appeal to folks. Everyone wants to know how to lose 10 lbs by next Tuesday. That it doesn't work that way, dosn't deter folks from wanting and buying every new quick weight loss scheme that comes along.


As to the medical effects being real - from my experiences I know they can be, and I don't think that it necessarily takes an extreme condition for effects to be noticeable.

I have a thyroid that's borderline low. It's just a smidgen too high for any doctor to want to prescribe thyroid medication. No doubt it does play a role in why my metabolism is so drastically reduced from my younger days. It's ironic, because in my late 20's at a slightly lower weight than I am now I could lose 6 lbs a week on 2500 calories (which probably means my normal calorie range was somewhere around 5000 to 6000 calories a day. Of course, I also was more active. The idea that I can eat under or around 2500 calories and not lose any weight at all is still kind of a difficult mental adjustment for me to make.

But it is what it is.

For me, the hormonal component of my weight gain was rather obvious. My husband called me werewolf, because I would get very mean and want meat "that week." (I'd also want chocolate and sweets which I normally don't like all that much). For most of my postpubescent life I've been telling doctors that I couldn't control my eating for about 7 to 10 days (a few days before and after my period) and it took the rest of the month to lose the weight I'd gained. From the first time I heard of it (in college), I wanted to try stacking my bc to prevent my period (and the hormonal drop) by starting the next pack instead of using the placebo week. But I never had a doctor that thought it was a good idea (and any time in my life that I had to change doctors, I'd ask the new doctor about it). I should have been more persistent I guess, because I finally persuaded my doctor to let me try it, and it's been a tremendous help (hubby's happy too because the mean werewolf is gone also).

Insulin resistance may be a cause or result of the weight gain - but it is a condition that snow balls. Generally, though folks with insulin resistance respond fairly well to low carb diets. If they're on blood sugar lowering meds or are otherwise prone to low blood sugar, induction can make them sick (like it does me), but generally finding the right level of carbs or kind of carbs helps. Some folks do very well on "right carb" diets like South Beach or other low GI diets.

I think the person who wants to lose weight and keep it off has to become their own researcher and personal trainer. If they want to be healthy (and not just thinner), they have to learn about nutrition, exercise physiology and psychology. Sometimes I think I have the equivalent of a doctorate in all three, as I'm sure many people here also have. I think you do have to get good at recognizing a theory from fact, though - even if you're going to textbooks and the research directly for your information.

The science IS out there, but you've got to be able to interpret it, and that takes practice and study.

Perhaps you could find the answers you are looking for about the low carb plan by reading Dr. Atkins' book. And possibly you could discuss your personal situation with your doctor to obtain the best plan for you. Good luck to you.

My thyroid checks normal. I really don't know about hormones. I know there's doctors who deal with both, but I really can't afford them. I also figure that it would take a clear medical condition to affect weightloss, and I'm not even sure that's been proven -- except for extreme thyroid conditions. I don't think all medical reasons are necessarily clear (obvious?). It may take some research to find out if you have a medical reason for slow metabolism. I don't have medical insurance, so I don't go to the doc to find out what is wrong with me...I use the internet for research. But that won't help with things that don't have obvious symptoms you can compare to. I don't know how to help you with that if you can't see a doctor. I do understand the cost issue.

In fact, there's so many diets because in fact none of them work on most people, if you see what I mean. If there were one that were broadly successful, most people would just do that..I don't believe this to be true. Most people would lose weight if they would count calories (or some other method of portion control) and eat a healthy balanced diet of whole grains and complex carbs (veggies and fruits) and protein, and restrict fats, processed foods (empty foods that deplete your system nutritionally) and sugars. But the problem is most people won't stick with it long enough for it to work, or they lose it and then go back to not watching what they eat and gain it back. Most people's problems are emotional or careless eating, rather than not finding the right diet. In other words, for most people, it requires a lifestyle change (less food and more activity) and maybe some psychological healing to actually succeed at weight loss.

I don't think that emotional problems are at the heart of most folks diet difficulties. Rather, I think millions of years of evolution is working against us in the artificial world we have created. Traits that kep our ancestors alive are killing us, because we're not eating "real" foods or living a natural life.

Even as to why good carb/low GI/low carb diets may succeed, may be partially understood in terms of what our ancestors were eating. Grains are a relatively modern invention, and must be cooked and/or fermented to be digestable. We are omnivores, but that doesn't mean we can thrive on a diet of anything (but especially modern foods with most of their nutrition stripped from them). We've processed foods until they barely resemble food, and we get very little exercise.
We often don't go to sleep when we're tired, and we often get up before we're completely rested.

We don't live in a natural world, so we have to learn to mimic or recreate nature as best we can (and we're not very good at that - we keep finding new ways to save work and energy expendituree). We don't work FOR our food, so we have to artificially add in exercise to mimic the hunting/gathering process.

There are thousands of ways in which we live less healthy lives than our ancestors. From not getting enough sleep and exercise to the stress of the modern world, and our foods getting further and further from their natural state.

Of course there are no simple solutions, because the problem isn't simple, but multi-factored.

I don't think that emotional problems are at the heart of most folks diet difficulties. Rather, I think millions of years of evolution is working against us in the artificial world we have created. Traits that kep our ancestors alive are killing us, because we're not eating "real" foods or living a natural life.
That's the part where I said "emotional or careless"...the careless part is the eating today's food with today's lifestyle, which is not healthy for people. If people were paying attention to their weight and their diet, they'd be able to eat healthy, add in some exercise, and keep it in control.

Great post, BTW.

I agree, but I suppose I would maybe say that we're often misdirected more than careless, in that (at least it's been my experience) that there are many of us who in trying to be very careful - still failed because of the difficulty in seperating true information from misinformation. You can work very hard and still fail, if you're putting your effort into the wrong things.

The "diet culture" is so frought with misinformation, that even an intelligent, educated person can get discombobulated with all of the garbage that passes for diet wisdom. Learning to work smarter not harder took me decades, because much of what we pass along as diet tradition is worthless. Despite the common knowledge that they are ineffective, crash diets are stilll amazingly popular. It's astonishing to me (despite always having prided myself on being fiercely individualistic) how lemming-like I found myself, in terms of weight loss - little things like absorbing societal rules such as "fat women don't allow themselves to be seen in public doing anything active, especially if it involves any sweating or skin exposure like dancing, bicycling, or swimming."

Sometimes I think alot of the emotional drama of weight loss is created by our view of fat and weight loss, rather than being a cause of the weight issues. There's so much stigma against being overweight, that stupid methods of weight loss are actually more likely than common sense.

It's sort of like if you were covered in a sticky, horrible stenchy, and burning tar-like substance, a mixture of acid, tar and rotting animal carcass. Even if the "best" way to get rid of the stuff was a very slow and cautious removal process, many of us would panic and attempt immediate and rapid, even dangerous methods of removal because of the ingrained horror of being wrapped up in such horrific stuff.

Really that's still what you're saying about emotional - it doesn't mean that overweight folks are inherently more emotional or less careful than anyone else - but because of the culture there is a HUGE emotional component to being overweight. We DO panic, because of how we look at fat. In panicking, we often make the situation worse if we grap for a fast and immediate solution, rather than a long-term one.

It still strikes me as crazy that I took so long to "learn" much of what I have. Some of it just took the growth of emotional maturity - saying at 40
"I don't care if I look ridiculous and people think I'm crazy - I'm buying a bicycle and the heck with what people think." But wow, I sure sometimes wonder what my life would have been like if I'd learned these things 30 years ago.

Actually, when I refer to emotional eating, I am speaking of people like me who are emotional binge eaters. I don't binge eat because I'm fat...I got fat from emotional binge eating. From having emotional issues that were not being resolved and instead of discovering and healing them, I resorted to food for comfort. There are a lot of us out there. When we are in binge mode, we know it's wrong and it's going to hurt in the end and yet we feel incapable of controlling it. Perhaps you haven't ever been a binge eater, and if not, you may not understand the compulsive nature of it. It's frightening, embarrassing, and a painful way to live.

I just wanted to say, Kaplods, you are amazingly knowledgable!

Thanks Leeesa (I've been "studying" this for 4 decades, and only in the last year feel like I'm found the way to "put it all together" for myself).

recidivist,
I do understand compulsive and binge eating. From early childhood to my late 20's I had very disordered eating issues - compulsive binge eating, and even bulimic patterns. I would go a week or more barely eating at all, trying to live on iceberg lettuce and vinegar, and then I'd eat 10,000 calories or more in a single day. I'm not dismissing emotional eating or eating disorders. They're real and painful. I hid food, ate in secret, and ate crazy amounts of food until I hurt. I was a member of OA for a while, and got alot out of the meetings, but one thing I didn't understand about my binges was that there was a physiological component as well as an emotional one. I ate as a coping and comfort mechanism, but what I ate wasn't random. I didn't binge on brussel sprouts when I needed comfort - it was always carbs, and there's a physiological explanation for that. I'm wondering if perhaps I wasn't born with, or developed from dieting, insulin resistance very early. I certainly had some of the symptoms very young.

I think it's important to address and consider the medicating potential of food, and not to overlabel all overweight folks as compulsive overeaters or emotional eaters. Some of us are, some of us aren't and the degree to which we suffer (and why) can be very different. I thought for many years that there was something very wrong with me emotionally (in part because OA and many diet articles and books seemed to be telling me that there was), but I began to wonder whether the emotions were causing the food issues, or whether the food issues were causing the emotions, or whether there was something more complicated going on. Where did the cycle begin and end, and did the food itself actually play a role?

Many of my questions came from my background in psych. Studying neurotransmitters and the physiology of emotion and affect in college and graduate school, I started wondering about the reciprocal relationship between physiology and psychology. To a large degree, psychology can be altered by physiology - and I became very curious about the physiological aspect of binge eating. WHY did I choose food as my medication of choice (as opposed to alcohol, cigarettes, or other legal and/or illegal substances). Why food? And there were a lot of influences, cultural and biochemical.

Without the physiological explanation, I would have expected giving up sugar and starch would have resulted in MORE emotional issues. After all, if I'm taking away my coping mechanism, I should see an increase in negative emotions. But, that's not what happened. The less I eat of sugars/starches, the LESS emotional I AM. The same has happened with changing my birth control (to mimic bc like Seasonique, in essence eliminating or minimizing hormonal fluctuations). So it seems that hormones and sugars/starches were largely responsible for my emotional issues, and my drive to self-medicate with carbohydrates. Changing the physiology changed my psychology.

Some folks who give up emotional eating, pick up other self-medicating strategies. They start drinking, or gambling or shopping - and I think that shows that for some folks - the prsence of underlying emotional issues need to be addressed in healthier ways. However, it's also possible that for some folks (as I suspect of myself) the eating cycle itself is causing the emotional issues, and changing the physiology can change the psyche.

There may be thousands of factors that contribute to weight issues, which is why a one-size-fits-all approach to weight loss will never work, but it's human nature to want to lump it all together. Why we're always looking for "the diet" when instead it's more like learning any other complicated skill. You pick up tools and strategies that you find useful, and you discard the rest. I think too often we throw the baby out with the bath water in weight loss - and instead of customizing our efforts to our own needs, we throw out one "diet" and go looking for another. When, literally, being scientist and lab rat may be the only generality that can be assumed true for every one who wants to lose weight whether they want to lose 5 lbs or 200 and whether they gained it in childhood or adulthood for reasons that are physiological, psychological or a combination of both.

Without the physiological explanation, I would have expected giving up sugar and starch would have resulted in MORE emotional issues. After all, if I'm taking away my coping mechanism, I should see an increase in negative emotions. But, that's not what happened. The less I eat of sugars/starches, the LESS emotional I AM. The same has happened with changing my birth control (to mimic bc like Seasonique, in essence eliminating or minimizing hormonal fluctuations). So it seems that hormones and sugars/starches were largely responsible for my emotional issues, and my drive to self-medicate with carbohydrates. Changing the physiology changed my psychology.

This is interesting. I'm not sure I have insulin resistance, but after starting with binge eating for emotional control, I got into alcohol for self-medicating. Doing both at once, actually. I believe mine is truly based on psychological problems, but I can't help but wonder about the fact that alcohol is sugar. And I know if I eat too much sugar I become addicted to it...same with fats. Yet if I eat too much citrus, I break out in hives, I don't crave more citrus.

My binge eating was usually not sweets (unless they were rich and creamy...I was going for the fats). It was usually salty fatty foods. Yet, they both may be the same problem. I do wish I understood what it is about the food you are binging on that is making you crave it. It does have a physiological reaction, not just psychological. It does sooth you temporarily, but then it immediately turns into pain...so why would we do it unless our body was craving it for something it's addicted to and getting something out of it (like carbs). Also the more I binge to the point of fullness, the more I feel like I need to eat even more...like I'm not full. I don't understand that. How can you feel hungry when you are stuffed?


Why am I addicted to fat? Is it the carbs that make me crave fats and protiens too? Is it just that it releases a chemical in our brains (like smoking)? It can't be seratonin, or we'd be happy and wouldn't need to binge anymore...binging makes us feel worse, not better.

I wonder if I have a deficiency in impulse control...yet at times like now, I seem to be in complete control...so is it my diet that made me lose control, or just emotional issues? Why do I (and anyone) lose control with alcohol, is it because I become addicted to the sugar again?

I love your posts...you do offer so much knowledge, and I learn much from you...and it gets me constantly searching in new directions and questioning myself.

Every question even half-answered inspires more questions, doesn't it? If it were someone else's life, instead of my own, I'd probably say fascinating more often than frustrating? But, I'm only left with my life after all.

Serotonin and tryptophan are some, I believe, of the brain chemicals that are affected by food binges but I don't understand the science of it very much myself. I think (and again, my understanding could be wrong) that the complicated cycles of blood sugar and brain chemicals are sometimes short or longer lasting depending on the foods. So perhaps instead of a healthy, stable rise in serotonin or other blood or brain chemicals, you get a sudden spike and then an equally sudden crash. Much like the blood sugar crash of a candy bar, which gives you a sudden burst of energy because of the swift rise in blood sugar rather than a more slowly digested food that causes a more modest, but steady rise in blood sugar.

I wasn't a sweet eater, either so I didn't think that sugar was my problem, but I didn't realize how much hidden sugar I was eating. I preferred sweet and savory things - my "perfect" example something pulled pork barbecue. But while there's a protein and a lot of fat, there's also a lot of sugar in the sauce or the indirect sugar from the starchy bun. I loved things like sweet and hot barbecued or asian sauced pork or chicken...

Because food really did have positive emotional effects on me, they were just short lived. I remember several times being so upset that I was shaking and food "steadied" me, almost like the stereotype of alcohol (although I've never had much pleasure from alcohol. It just makes me "sleepy.") I would feel calmed and even content, but only for a short time. I would even have food "hangovers" of sorts, though as carb overdose makes me feel sluggish and nauseous with a big headache.

I don't really understand either the hungry yet stuffed feeling, but I know it well, and for me the carb/fat combination is like food crack or heroine to me. A dry cracker isn't all that appealing. I'll eat one or two, and be fine. A dry breadstick, no appeal - but crackers and cheese and I'll eat until I hurt and still want more. I once read that there's actually a biological preference that is very common in many animals to prefer the carb/fat combo because it's so rare in nature. Most high carb "natural" foods are low fat, and the few sources (nuts, avocado...) are such nutritional goldmines that there's actually a good reason for a "gotta have it" response for omniovous critters. The competition for those nuts, seeds, avocado etc. in the wild is so tough that only the most determined and first on the scene get the prizes and everybody else is just out of luck. In a sense, what is a "treasure" in the natural world, we've made common place, but our bodies still act like they're treasures and we've got this urge to "gorge and hoard."

If you think about it, it makes sense in terms of intensely fat, sweet, and salty flavors. They're not very common in the natural world, and so animals (including us) have a sweet, fat, and salty tooth (and some of us have more of one than the others). But in the natural world, we have a drive for those things because they're RARE. Evolution hasn't prepared us for the very unnatural abundance. Intensely sweet, fat or salty things just aren't "natural," they are natural "treasures" and so we're designed to seek them out - but in the "natural" world that overripe fruit, that smidgen of honey or a few nuts would be few and far between and you'd have to work very hard to get them. In a natural world, overpopulation occurs long before widespread obesity. If we didn't have all of our modern conveniences, and we had to work for our food, we wouldn't be overweight either. Those who had slower metabolisms would actually have the advantage, as they wouldn't have to work quite as hard for their food. And if you did get a little overweight, it would make getting food (and avoiding being some other critter's food) more difficult.

In a sense, this all is very complicated, and in others it's beautifully simple. Trying to create a more natural life, isn't "easy" but we have a lot of examples of what folks used to have to do to get food. We do know that Doritos did not exist in prehistoric times. We do know that our ancestors had to hunt and gather food and avoid being food. In a sense, think about what it took for your food to become food. How much work did it take. Even the Doritos example. Think of the work it took to make that Dorito - if you grew the corn yourself, ground it into flour, gathered all the other ingredients - it would take you months to make and eat a Dorito. When we've done all of the work to gather and eat our food, oursleves we've stay pretty slim as a people. However, once machines started taking over, the machine did the work, and the energy we saved went right to our butts.

It's alot more complicated than that, but it's also in some ways that simple. The closer we eat foods to their natural state (their real natural state) and the more we move as if we had to catch and make our food ourselves, the more natural a body we will have.

Now, some folks take this to extremes (and more power to them) and try to choose a known or theoretic ancestor diet. From the raw foodists to the paleolithic and neanderthin folks who say "I'll only eat what I could theoretically catch or gather naked with nothing but a pointed stick."

I'm too lazy to do either, but reading about them did make me think. I am committed to eating more whole foods in as natural a state as possible, and raw or lightly cooked if possible. Even meats, I've learned to go from very fatty, overcooked muscle meats to the more varied meats that omnivorous critters eat. We probably nutritionally would be better off eating insects (that is if we didn't use pesticides) but I'm not interested in going that far. However, I know that muscle meats of only big mammals is not a natural diet of any critter. Even wolves don't only eat the muscle, the prized bits are the internal organs, and everything including skin and bone are eaten. Not going to go that far either, but I try to eat a greater variety of meats than I'm used to, including organ meats occasionally. And when I eat canned fish like sardines, I eat the bones (which I used to think was gross).

My sister is a dietitian and she inspired me to learn more about nutrition and nutrients. It's helped me realize just how out of balance my diet was - and I thought my diet was fairly well-balanced (just eating far too much) because I wasn't a typical junk food junky. I ate real, traditional meals. But even what I think of as traditional meals are relatively new inventions. Even spaghetti, cheese, and potatoes were not widely eaten in the US 150 years ago. We're eating twice the beef (and meat in general) than we did only 50 years ago, and not eating "all of the critter." I even cringe when I see dogfood cans that say "no byproducts" because byproducts (skin, bones and organ meats) are perhaps the most nutritious part of a critter.

I'm starting to rant and ramble, which I often do. I do LOVE the topic of food, nutrition, exercise, health, obesity and weight loss. For most of my life it was more a source of painful obsession, but now it's a healthy fascination I think. I still have a LOT more questions than answers, but I'm not afraid of asking and searching out the answers or even just more questions.

Learning is fun and fascinating, but it is hard to sort through the misinformation. I even know I don't do a great job of it, because I do read a lot of popular books and think "wow that makes sense," even as I realize just because it "makes sense" doesn't make it true, and I have to remember to seek out the more reputable sources to see if this actually makes sense or the author is just really good at spreading bullpuckey.

But for me the first step, really I think was looking at it as a wide, wonderful field of study to explore (rather than a frustrating, swirling mess of confliction information). It really is both, but persective is key.

Because I'm SO frustrated about my weight. I have tried every diet known to man on top of the fact that when not dieting, I don't overeat more than once a week, and then only to a "reasonable" extent -- in other words, not a whole big serving of something at a diner AND dessert, or a pint of ice cream or box of cookies, but maybe a hamburger with the bun with a side of slaw, or ONE slice of pizza at lunch, or something... my calorie intake is usually around 1,000, and it will go over 1,500 once in a while and not much over!! Yes, I've tried eating more in case my body was low metabolism cause it needed more calories. I GAIN WEIGHT. I'VE TRIED IT ALL -- VEGAN, Weight Watchers, rice diet, Somersizing, slow carb, writing down my intake .. I go by the book but the book doesn't help me. There have been only three things that have ever caused weightloss for me --

1) My oatmeal and chicken "diet", my own system when I had very little money but didn't want to give up on trying to lose weight. NOT brown rice, whole grain breads and beans. I lose no weight when I eat those. Problem here is obvious: who wants to eat just those two for the rest of their lives? Plus, when I went on an antidepressant, it stopped working anyway and that's the real reason I stopped -- the scale started going up anyway.

Uhhhhh, babe...

You're not eating *enough*.

Depending on your starting weight and exercise level, you should at LEAST get a good 1200-1500 calories a day.

It's just so hard to lose weight!!!....I wish I had a magic plan/answer but you have to find what works for you.

Maybe this will help? I thought it helped me....

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/why-is-low-carb-is-harder-the-second-time-around-part-ii/

Not about the WOE (i am doing low carb) but more for the part about 'controlling your elephant'....

good luck!

kaplods- I love your posts. You should write a book!

oopsiedoop- I'm another who loses weight verrry slowly from dieting. I made major healthy changes to my diet last May, and up until recently was stuck at a 7 pound loss! The only way my body will give up its stranglehold on the extra pounds is exercise (cardio AND weight training), so I'm making that my primary focus. Maybe you're the same way?

Also, I do low-carb because it's the only way I was able to stop my almost daily binges. For me, all calories are definitely not created equal!

Icicle- I couldn't agree more. Ever since I lowered my carbs significantly I lost weight and eliminated my daily binges. I eat when I'm hungry (sometimes I even have to remind myself to eat when it's time). When I only restricted calories, I was constantly hungry and using up so many calories on carbs...only to be craving more.

kaplods- I love your posts. You should write a book!



Colleen, this is a recurring theme for you lately! Even if you just cut and paste your posts...DO IT!!:carrot:

great thread! it's obvious that there is much much more to losing weight, than "excess calories in=overweight."

just look around at your friends who can eat anything... don't exercise and stay thin!

It's hereditary... no doubt. And it can come from relatives way back... all my family is thin. Or so I thought turns out my great grandmother was morbidly obese...

There is a bio-chemical link somewhere and I agree that the key is carb intake.. as stated before serotonin plays a very important part in the processing of carbs/sugar by the body.

Some people are just carb sensitive...