On Apr 04, 2007, at 7:00 pm, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> K > That's one of the reasons I personally don't follow an extreme  
> low carb (or minimal protein) regimen.  :-)
>
> It's not the primary reason I tried it, but I've never seen  
> anything that is so effective for easy weight loss.  With a zero  
> carb, limited protein, unlimited fat regime you're never hungry.   
> And it's darned near impossible to keep the calories up.  Or at  
> least it was for me in my two three-week experiments.

Jim,

Do you find that there's a lot of difference in your appetite between  
0g carbs and, say, 30g carbs (which Robert just described as  
"extremely low carb (to induce ketosis)") in terms of weight loss or  
appetite?

I've recently stopped eating fruit - I'm convinced it just makes me  
tired and groggy if I have too much, and I find it hard to eat in  
moderation, as my mum fills the kitchen with so much of the stuff the  
worktop looks like an altar to the sun god.  Yesterday I had the  
familiar headache going into ketosis (anyone else get that every  
time?) I'm still eating some carbs though, mainly from parsnips and  
carrots.  I don't fancy going 0-carb, but I'm not bothered eating  
mainly leaf/stalk/flower vegetables and leaving roots alone for a while.

On a similar note, I'm interested to know about how many calories you  
find yourself eating on a low-carb diet.  I'm starting to take up  
weight training.  One book I read put my daily calorie needs at  
around 3000 for muscle gain.  Based on the info on the packets of the  
Tesco pork belly I'm fond of, I'd need to eat well over 2kg of meat  
*a day* to satisfy my appetite!  That just doesn't seem right.  Is it  
possible to put on significant muscle eating around 2000 Cal a day?   
This is the most I can realistically eat, or maybe 2500 if I push  
myself, but I wouldn't want that much every day.

My feeling is if it's hard to eat very much on a low carb diet, it  
must mean you don't actually need that much to begin with.

Ashley