both..will be effective..

Atkins had the idea of a metabolic advantage, meaning you boost your basal metabolism by about 1000 calories. More recent studies show that its because low carb dieters tend to eat less. There is significantly more WEIGHT loss associated with atkins, initially, because of the lack of glycogen stored in muscles. While the glycogen itself may only be a few grams, it holds a lot of water. Its common to drop 10 pounds in the first 1-2 weeks, but a lot of that is due to the loss in water weight associated with using up glycogen.

Atkins really does suppress hunger. Your main goal with the diet is to not think about food, and let the diet work for you. My first bout with the diet, about 10 years ago, I could go 1-2 days without eating because I simply wasn't hungry, and just didn't realize I didn't eat. My advice: Don't do this. You will stall weight loss, and you will fail.

The key is, eat when you're hungry - just watch carbs. That may be 3000 calories one day, and 1000 the next.

I can't really say that low-carb is working better than low-calorie, because my diet IS low-calorie, it just also happens to be low-carb.


I can tell you why a low-carb/low-calorie diet works better for me than a high-carb/low-calorie diet - and that in a nutshell is hunger and craving control. I also have more energy and have fewer and less severe flares and symptoms from my health issues (arthritis, fibromyalgia, asthma, autoimmune disease, skin issues, IBS....).

I have been able to prove to myself that I do lose more on 1800 calories of low-carb than on 1800 calories of high-carb, but the difference isn't quite as dramatic as my comfort-level. On 1800 calories of low-carb, I feel like I'm eating a lot of food, and I don't get hungry. On 1800 calories of high-carb, I feel like I'm starving to death 24/7. And the more carbs I eat, the hungrier I get, so I feel hungrier on 5,000 calories of high-carb than on 500 calories of no-carb (not that I'm advocating eating that low-calorie or even that low-carb).

I can and have stalled on low-carb (If you eat 6,000 calories, even if none of the the calories are coming from carbs, you aren't necessarily going to lose weight), so calorie-control is still an important element. A lot of people don't have to count calories when eating low-carb, because they naturally eat less because of the hunger-control. I do need a portion-control element because my hunger signals aren't incredibly reliable.


Finding a comfortable balance of hunger and calorie control, I find that a low-carb (but not so low that I feel nauseous) exchange plan works best for me. Since I can't go "too low" without getting ill, paleo principles work really well (as long as I remember not to overdo the fruit).

This. I used to be climbing the wall starving all the time trying to eat to the food pyramid. Even if I binged on a few thousand calories of high carb food, I was hungry again soon after. On low carb, it's easy to eat until I'm satisfied.

I have tuna (in oil) and salad for lunch most days. If I added two slices of bread and made a sandwich, I'd be starving by 3pm. It's hard to explain to people that eating less makes me fuller, but it is what it is and I'm happy :-)