Here’s a cite for ya:
I hope this is the average with small children and women included. 2000 calories is what I burn laying around in bed all day. If this is all people eat, no wonder they get fat. Their body is suffering, and has to store every bit of excess energy as fat when It gets it (i.e ice cream cone or buffet), just so it can survive.
Perhaps I’m being crazy, but this doesn’t make any sense to me.
If you consume 2000 Calories but burn more than that (I think that’s what you’re saying) surely your body has nothing to store.
I realise that metabolism slows down once your body thinks you’re starving it but I imagined that once that happened, your body would try to prevent you from burning too many Calories and make you horribly fatigued.
So, I don’t think you’d gain weight (get fat) but I agree that your body would be suffering if you’re not getting close to enough calories. That’s why traditional diet plans advise you to (at most) cut your caloric intake by 500 kcals.
(I have a horrible feeling I’m going to walk away from this point and be told that I’m a wally. Ah well… :))
Huh? So would you recommend losing weight by eating more calories than you burn?
Daniel
If you ate 2k calories every day, and never ever wavered, yeah, you would lose weight. The second you cheat and eat the extra 800 calories in the form of a blizzard at DQ, fat storage, do not pass go.
Yes, losing weight healthily should be 500 calories a day, they suggest burning 250 of it, and cutting 250 from food. If all you burn every day is 2250 calories, then a 2k a day diet is great. If my BMR is 2000 (1950 actually) and I burn 1500 calories extra throughout the day, which I do, eating 2k calories is going to eat away my muscle, make my bones fragile, and tear up my immune system.
Daniel- I don’t suggest losing weight by eating more calories than you burn. I didn’t even suggest that lightly. I said I burn 2000 calories laying around in bed all day, as in my Basal Metabolic rate. The amount of calories my body needs to just exist. Not getting up and going to work/gym, etc. I only weigh 185lbs, 200+lb males BMR is probably higher, and trying to lose weight by eating 2000k calories is going to be detrimental to their health.
For a pretty reliable and mostly accurate site that measures the calories burned doing daily activities, with BMR included, go here:
They get their information from the American college of sports medicine, using data recived from tests using the K4 b² .
From thier FAQ site:
Keep in mind that it is not 100% accurate, and should only be used as a general guideline, which they themselves say. However, it is fairly accurate with only certain variables that may cause inaccuracies. I rather like the site.
Ah, I see! I didn’t realize you were burning ~3500 calories a day. That does make a difference.
I’m a small guy, ~120 lbs, and so for me, I burn ~1500 calories at rest. A 2,000 calorie diet would pork me up in no time. So I go to the gym a couple times a week, and I eat a high-fiber, low-fat diet that fills me up with fiber instead of calories, and from which I derive my nutrition directly, rather than using supplements.
Daniel
There might well be a difference between the calories you eat and the calories your body uses. Food that does not digest is calorically moot.
<post snipped>
Well, I am reading the book right now and the suggested menu for initial phase of the Atkins diet contains about 2000 calories. One of the rules in the initial phase is that you should eat until you are satisfied, not stuffed. If you are not that hungry just have a small snack. In other words the inital phase is not about counting calories in any way, it’s about counting carbs, and most people are going to consume way more than 1200 calories.
My Mom started the Atkins diet about 6 months ago. She says she feels better, has more energy through out the day, sleeps better and no longer gets cravings for sweets. And she lost the weight she wanted to, which wasn’t much. She also went back for blood tests and her cholestorol levels have dropped.
Slee
I’m always compelled to note that your pH balance is used to determine your diet and that those with extreme alkaline based biochemestries will not fare well on this diet.
20% of the population is estimated to be raw-carnivorous in the sense that they process fat and protien for energy efficiently.
30-40% are considered raw-vegitarians in that they process carbohydrates for energy efficiently.
The in-betweens are considered omnivorous for all practical purposes, although there is a bell curve effect here.
-Justhink
Oh…
acidic food = fat and protien
Carnivores have the lowest incidence of heart disease and cancer in the world (read: Eskimo’s for example) as they metabolize cholestorals for hormone building more efficiently and completely than vegetarians and maintain a heathier pancreatic system to fight off the effects of free-radicals. However, a raw vegetarian diet will kick their asses pretty good - which is basically what they’re being forced to eat now (Eskimo’s).
alkalinic food = carbohydrates
Since the inclusion of high fat and processed foods, these are basically the most susceptable people to the effects of heart disease and cancer in the world (based solely on diet - which obviously isn’t everything these days with all the crazy viruses, chemicals and radio/magnetic stuff) This is why the public hears that vegetarianism solves cancer - most of the population is vegetarian - or has a strong alkaline root to their metabolic system.
A raw vegetarin diet will kill dead as dead 20% of our population within 2-3 years.
There are means of storage utilized by Eskimos, one other aspect of note with regards to vitamin C is that they always eat the contents of the stomachs of their prey, which typically contain berries and nuts and such.
-Justhink
Wait a minute –
That would mean that even those eskimos who die have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease than the rest of the population. (I mean, everybody dies eventually, right?)
If they’re not dying of cancer or heart disease, what are they dying of? Salmonella?
For your first sentence, you’re ASSUMING an 8 oz T-bone. A 16 oz T-bone is 1000. It’s what I eat if I’m gonna have a T-bone.
Your second sentence, how the heck would you know how many calories I was eating? I didn’t see you there monitoring my meals and snacks.
Your third sentence is just a wild-ass bunch of bunk. It’s NOT a nausea inducing diet. But how would you know, you haven’t done it. You’re just spouting off things you know absolutely nothing about. So you read the book. That doesn’t make you an expert on the experiences of people who have done the diet. You’ve just got a hair crosswise over this and a thousand people trying to tell you different based on their own experience would never make a dent.
I’ll admit that these distinctions are irrelevant from that point of veiw. It’s like talking about societies and addiction, and then chiming and and saying, “Yeah, but we’re all addicted to life. Let’s go cold turkey on that, the withdraws are painful like any other addiction, but after-wards you will see the benefit of not having this addiction.”.
Current statistics on Eskimo societies integrated with Coca-Cola and the like are showing an increased precidence of disease then their global counter-parts. For carnavores in general, sugar is quite the drug (and is highly alkalinic); there is this sense of an allergic reaction in the form of an addiction when exposed to things like alcohol, Ice-ceam and processed foods like pastries or pizzas… Carnavores get high off of this stuff, because their bodies don’t break it down very well.
-Justhink
Adiposity 101. Interesting reading regarding diet and well documented with cites.
**
Oh. We’re talking specifically about you, are we? I was going by serving size.
Again, I don’t know. I’m going by an estimated serving size. I’m not talking specifically about you, either. The calorie decrease is well cited and based on an average diet. Your diet may differ.
Applegate also cites decreased calories as well as water loss for the initial weight loss associated with Atkins saying that the reduction in carbs removes about 1,000 calories from a diet.
Why do you think I have the book?
Also note that I provided a cite immediately after my post by a physician which backs up my assertions for reduced calories, ketosis and the nausea.
Apparently you didn’t bother to click that or any of the other cites I provided before you showed up to claim that I didn’t know what I was talking about.
Your hypocrisy is ironic.
And this is the real crux of the problem. You’re being defensive about a stupid diet.
Yes, it works. Using ether to start a diesel engine will also work, it just happens to destroy the engine in the process.
I happen to know what I’m talking about because I take health and nutrition very seriously, and I’m both well-read and well-practiced on the subject.
Every credible real scientific athority agrees with me that the Atkins diet is ill-advised.
It is pseudoscience based on fraudulent assumptions, and every bit as dangerous as faith healing.
Ahh, I see. A cite that apparently sells software and modems. This is where I usually look for my nutritional information.
You’re fucking kidding, right?
Try READING THE PAGE, Scylla. You’re hopeless.
And they’re not even incredibly good modems at that.
I can’t seem to get too far without breaking out in giggles.
Let’s see, the first link in your article is a cite too… itself!
Would you call this an example of circular logic boys and girls? I would.
I especially like this from the executive summary:
The second link in your little cite is also, surprise surprise, a link to itself or rather the modem selling page. And, I can also read about “Captain Chuck’s excellent flying experiences!”
Wow!
This certainly is a credible and scientific cite you’ve provided!
And oooH! look, here’s the Fossberg picture gallery, with pictures of squirels!
And here’s a picture of Fossberg himself with C3PO!
Ummm, No offense here, but are you sure we should be taking this guy’s advice on weight loss? I mean he looks like a nice guy, and he sure knows how to take a picture of a duck, but he’s not exactly lean.
Never mind, the ability to photograph ducks goes a long way to lending credibility in my eyes. Let’s move on.
Let’s see the next supportin link is also a link to itself, and next it appears that he’s making the implication that carbohydrates are responsible for a perceived (but marvelously unsubstantiated) claim that average puberty ages have dropped from 17 to thirteen over some unknown sample of the population over someone unknown timeframe.
So we’re three paragraphys in and we’ve already solved the precocious puberty conundrum?
Wonderful.
This of course is substrantiated with another link to… you guessed it! Itself.
This is your website isn’t it?
And then it goes on saying that exercise has nothing to do with weightloss, we have some mysterious “syndrome X” stuff, and…
Well.
Total bullshit, and no thanks, I don’t want to buy a modem.