Elizabeth Miller wrote:

>I personally have failed to lose weight on as little as 800 calories a day
>while nursing an infant. Yet on double that amount I didn't gain either
>during that period of my life. My child's pediatrician wasn't surprized --
>hormones he said. Whatever relationship there exists between caloric intake
>and my weight certainly isn't linear.
>

I think we agree on that.  And the nonlinearity is a result of the wide
range of possible metabolic responses to differences in caloric intake.
 I think we agree on that

>An ongoing investigation comparing Atkins and a low calorie approach (1200
>calories) using adolescent girls has found more weight loss for the Atkins
>group even though they eat on average about 1800 calories a day.
>

There are a number of studies comparing macronutrient composition of
diets while holding calories constant, and most show a slightly greater
weight loss on lower carb.  What's more significant, to my mind, is that
the lower carb approach results in more *fat* loss, which is the main
reason why I favor it.

>The problem with the calorie reduction hypothesis is that it doesn't lend
>itself to falsifiability -- according to the calorie theory one should lose a
>pound of stored energy for every 3500 calorie deficit. But when the amount
>needed to maintain the weight shifts with the calorie intake, with
>macronutrient content, with hormonal signals and God knows what else, it
>becomes rather difficult to test the hypotheses and it loses scientific
>verifiability and value as an explanatory idea. If calorie reduction doesn't
>lead to weight loss then the argument is always that one hasn't lowered them
>enough. Slippery and slimy and hard to pin down as Mao used to say. As I said
>before, calories may count someplace within the very, very complex system
>known as metabolism -- but on it's own, it has little practical predictive
>usefulness.
>
>

Obviously, the problem is in knowing what counts as a "deficit."  How
much energy the body uses in a day depends on a lot of variables.  But
the practical significance of calories is this: No matter what the
macronutrient composition of the diet, it is still possible that one is
eating too much, and that is preventing weight loss.  That possibility
never goes away.  How much is "too much" will vary from person to
person, and even in a single person it will vary according to age and
other factors.  This makes it very difficult to figure out how many
calories are "too much", but it doesn't show that there is no practical
usefulness to it.

I have a weight problem, and I've had a weight problem for most of my
adult life.  If I eat as much as I want of just anything, I gain weight
until I reach a setpoint.  That setpoint is currently about 260 lbs. (I
am 6'1" tall).  Twenty-five years ago, it was 240.  Given my LBM, and
considering 15% body fat to be a moderate goal for a man, my weight
should be no more than about 212.  If I reduce carbs, my weight will
spontaneously drop, but when I have kept records they indicate that I
also spontaneously eat less -- at least for a while.  So, I know from
experience that if I stay in ketosis my weight will drop to about 230 or
235, which is about where it is now.  I'd have to do some digging, but I
think there is research that indicates that people on lowcarb diets tend
to eat less than they were eating before, although they may think they
are eating more.  In my own case, I have learned that to get my body fat
down to 15%, which I have succeeded in doing on occasion, I have to go
hungry.  There simply is no combination of paleo or nonpaleo foods and
exercise that changes this.  It means eating less, and this is why my
weight is 233 today.  I can "diet down" to 220 (I find it *very*
difficult to get below 220, but I've done it), but it takes mental
energy to maintain the caloric restriction.  Eventually other priorities
kick in and I start eating more, and I return to my "lowcarb setpoint",
which is at least better than my "anything goes setpoint."


So I agree with you that calories are not the whole story about weight
loss, but I cannot agree that they have "little practical predictive
usefulness" for people whose weight does not normalize on a paleo low-
or high-carb diet.  I can reliably predict that my weight won't drop or
stay below 230 unless I restrict calories.  I think Dori and others on
this list have similar tales to tell.  I consider my 21.5% body fat to
be too much; for that matter, I think Ray Audette's 7% is too little, so
I would be inclined to say that his weight hasn't normalized on paleo
either.  But maybe we need more research on this.  Among
hunter-gatherers, what is the body fat distribution curve?  Does anyone
know?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]