Of course. That is why 100% of people who try to lose weight by
restricting fats and calories easily succeed in losing all the weight
they want to and keep it off forever. That is why every one is thin and
in perfect health today.

TC

Of course. That is why 100% of people who try to lose weight by
restricting fats and calories easily succeed in losing all the weight
they want to and keep it off forever. That is why every one is thin and
in perfect health today.

TC

I have about 45 pounds to lose.  I am a man and think its finally time
to rein in the pounds on the scale.  I've looked at the Atkins diet and
the Dr. Bernstein diet on
http://www.bariatricsweightloss.com/def_bar.html  but am confused as to
which medical doctor I should follow!  Has anyone had any success on
either of these programs?

The two diets serve two different but overlapping goals and are intended
for different groups.  The 2nd doc designed his diet specifically to
control blood glucose by controling carb intake for diabetics.  When you
need to lose more weight using it, he says to reduce protein or fat, I
don't recall which without looking, but not the carbs he wants you to
have.  In other words, lose weight by eating less to reduce energy intake.  
The 1st doc sold books by promoting a diet that allows eating all the
forbidden foods other diets say to reduce and eat without being hungary
and do it more quickly.  His diet was for weight loss and it too works by
reducing calories below what is needed.  When compared with other diets,
the low carb had an advantage in loss in the 1st 6 months but was similar
at one year; and both worked because people ate less food and thus fewer
calories.

These two books are an example of different goals and while
they look at carbs it is for different reasons.  Eat less and exercise is
still the best way to lose weight and keep it off for the long term.  300
calories less per day produces a 1 pound loss a week on average, losing
more then around 2 pounds a week can be counter productive as it has a
porrer long term track record for keeping weight off.  When one's new
weight goal is met, the only way to keep it is to eat the fewer calories
that go with it,ie. a balance between amount eaten and how much to keep a
given weight.

IMO, number of calories from a particular food does not indicate whether
you will get fat. The basic equation calories in > calories out will
make you fat over a period of time.

Fat, carbs and protein are macronutrients. Almost all "diets" are
endless manipulations of one or more macronutrients. Your body needs all
 three. There is some notion of "quality." Like in carbs there is
Glycemic Index and Load, with protein there is usually associated very
high saturated fat, and with fat there are saturated, poly, mono and
transfats. But the basic equation calories in > calories out still holds
no matter what the "quality" of macronutrients.

So lets say you determine that your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate; or what
you burn up just sitting there) is 2000 and you eat 6000 calories a day.
You will get fat (been there, done that). If your BMR is 2000 and you
eat 1800 calories a day you will ever so slowly get thinner. The issue
now is how will you "feed" your body nutrients, vitamins, minerals, and
the right building blocks so you lose the right kind of weight (not
water and not muscle mass) and so you get fit rather than thin (think
gym rat vs. starvation victim). And the answer to that issue is to eat
only high "quality" macronutrients.

Everyone knows this but hardly anyone is willing to admit it when faced
with a Krispy Kreme in the office. Its amazing how we fill our precious
bodies with the cheapest crap we can find. Actually its not amazing.
Sugar and fats are probably addictive and the corporations, knowing
this, load us up and sell it to us cheap so we think were getting a good
deal. Then they can sell us drugs and medical treatment to extend our
lives so they can milk us dry for as long as possible. Anyway I digress.

Eat a balanced diet of healthy foods; fruits, veggies, whole grains,
legumes, nuts, lean meats, moderate amounts of fat. Eat small portions
and make sure calories in < calories out. Read your labels, avoid
Partially Hydrogenated Oil and High Fructose Corn Syrup. Better yet is
eat food with no labels. Avoid added sugar and added fat. Stop eating
donuts (it doesnt matter if its low fat or low carb, a donut is a donut;
stop eating junk food). Get some exercise to increase your calories out.
Its all very simple but the hardest thing. Maybe without thinking about
it youre macronutrient profile might meet the diet "du jour" (Atkins
Phase 4, Zone, Target, etc.)

Yes, but food, as far as I have seen, seems very lethargic to me. It
just sits there on the plate no matter how much energy it has ;)

k

Yes, calories are a measure of how much energy a given food has.

In theory, watching your calories alone should be all you need to do to lose
weight. In practice, the failure rate for people who go on such diets is so
high that it's not worth considering.  With most things besides diets, a 10%
failure rate would be considered high. With some diets, you are lucky if
that percent succeed in the long run.

If you cut down your calories by the equivalent of a pat or two of butter a
day, you should lose ten pounds or more per year.  That's how simple it is
to lose weight by cutting calories.

The reality is that your metabolism changes over time, and so does your
activity level.  These are also dependent on caloric intake. Different foods
with the same number of calories are treated differently by the body.  Some
foods, such as pure starches or sugars or refined flour, will break down
almost instantly without much need for digestion.  There will be a rapid
increase in blood sugar followed by a huge spike in insulin, followed by a
rapid depletion of blood sugar, followed by hunger pangs.  Other foods, such
as a balanced diet with whole grains, vegetables, a moderate amount of
protein and some unsaturated fats (avoid saturated fats and trans fats) will
leave you feeling full much longer, even if the calorie count is the same.
Also, your body expends a portion of your caloric intake on digesting food.
So even if two foods have an identical calorie count, it's still possible
for the body to gain more calories from one than from the other. It's not
how many calories you eat, but how many calories you take in compared to how
many you use up.

You don't have to count calories at all to lose weight.  You do have to eat
right, and stick to reasonable portions.  You have to stay away from junk
food and food with no nutritional value. You need to prepare your food in a
more healthful way.  Instead of having fried chicken with mashed potatoes
and watermelon, have grilled chicken breast with some brown rice and steamed
vegetables, and have a small fruit for dessert. You could even go for a half
a grapefruit.  The more fiber, and the less sugar the better. Also, and
acidic fruit will slow down the sugar intake too. If grapefruit is at one
end, and watermelon at the other, you can figure out which fruits in the
middle would be better than others.  An occasional orange is better than
drinking a cup of OJ made from three of them.

Are calories the measure of how much energy a given food item has?

Calories are a measurement of the energy generated by a substance that
is burned in a can. The can is called a bomb calorimeter. It is a
contraption that was used at the end of the age of alchemy and the
beginning of the age of science.

How calories relate to weight management in humans is highly suspect
because it has been shown that more than 95% of dieters who try to lose
weight by counting calories fail to keep any weight off. It simply
doesn't work in the real world.

TC