On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Don Wiss wrote:

> >I think it would be safer to give a figure such as 1 gram per kg of
> >bodyweight, in order to allow for a range of sizes, otherwise people
> >who are eating more, are forced to get a disproportionate amount of their
> >energy from fat.
>
> But he doesn't. After thousands of patients, if this made a difference I
> think he would have written so. For one, those over weight should be
> getting less carbs proportionally in order to lose weight. For another this
> isn't a precise number. His method of counting using bread units makes for
> a very crude counting. And he recommends unlimited fats.

The Allan/Lutz approach differs both from paleo and from other
lowcarb approaches in a number of respects.  First, it's not
really paleo at all, although they give a sort of paleo argument
for carb reduction.  Nevertheless, they don't really care where
the 72g of carbs come from.  Second, unlike many lowcarb
programs, they recommend a gradual reduction of carbs.  Dr.
Lutz's clinical experience suggests that abrupt reduction can
cause complications in some people.

One of the things I like about the book Life Without Bread is
that the authors admit the limitations of their approach.  They
admit, for example, that carb reduction is not always the cure,
or the complete cure, for obesity.  Many people lose some weight
this way, then plateau more or less permanently well above their
goal weight.  We have seen on this list that a similar caveat
applies to Neanderthin.  While lots of people lose substantial
amounts of weight on Neanderthin, a significant number of them do
not reach their goal.  I imagine that a realistic goal for men is
15% body fat; and perhaps 20% for women.  I don't think anyone
really knows why this is the case.

Anyway, another thing that they point out, based again on Dr.
Lutz's clinical experience, is that women are more likely than
men to be resistant to weight loss using a lowcarb program.  This
may just be a function of the greater metabolic rate of men,
owing to greater muscle mass, or it may be something else.

Don's point above -- that if the 72g ceiling is adhered to, a
heavier person will be eating relatively more calories from fat
-- is correct, and it is intentionally so.  It is the authors'
opinion that the more overweight a person is, the more energy
they should be getting from fat.  They also claim that, based
again on Dr. Lutz's clinical experience, they have not seen much
additional benefit from reducing carbs below 72g.  This, I'm
sure, can vary from person to person, however.

I'll say this much: The difference between ketogenic carb levels
(30-40g/day or less) and 72g/day may not sound like much, but in
my experience it can be dramatic in terms of compliance.  That
is, I think many people find that after a few weeks of ketogenic
diet they start to experience very strong carb cravings and may
well "fall off the wagon" completely at that point.  But a carb
intake of 72g is, in my experience, pretty easy to tolerate
without much craving.  Following the Steak Lovers' (Anchell)
diet, I calculate my carb intake to range between 25 and 75
g/day, depending on which carbs I choose.  This seems to work
well, allowing me to choose the denser carbs when I seem to need
them.  Obviously, it hasn't worked for everyone.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]