Elizabeth Miller wrote:

>It
>becomes apparent that dietary fat is not the culprit in weight gain, but
>excess carbohydrate is. Even when calories are increased to 2,600,
>individuals on a restrictive carbohydrate intake can lose weight. With excess
>carbohydrate in the body, fat burning is prevented, carbohydrate conversion
>to fat occurs, fat is allowed to accumulate and weight gain ensues.
>http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2002/1/11-175782.html
>
>

I don't really question any of this; I was just pointing out that for
men who weigh more than about 173 pounds, even 2600 calories is
hypocaloric.  I accept the premise that carbohydrate reduction maximizes
the weight loss effect of a given caloric deficit.  I don't accept the
premise that if carbs are sufficiently restricted calories become
irrelevant to weight loss.  Even at zero carbs, or as close as one can
practically get to it, it is possible to either fail to lose weight or
to gain weight.  My gain of two pounds while eating about 90% fat is
proof of that.  What was interesting about that experiment was the way
my appetite kept increasing.  I have done near-zero carb before, and
also noticed a gradual increase in appetite, and eventual weight gain.
 I guess a reasonable hypothesis is that in addition to the absence of
DIT, my rate of gluconeogenesis is inadequate.  I could test this by
checking blood glucose during zero carb dieting; maybe I should do so.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]