wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:


I'd have to see some records to believe you have doubled your intake and
are losing weight. I'm not saying you are lying, I just don't think you
have the data to know. Many studies have shown that people who don't
actually record their intake make guesses that are pure fantasy.


The volume of food I eat has remained about the same. Its what I'm
eating that's changed. My guess is that the fact that I'm eating more
fatty foods and less starchy foods has caused my caloric intake to
increase. I have also eating a lot of stir fry recently to get the
much needed fiber. The catch is that I cook it with about 1/4th cup
of oil which becomes part of the meal. That is, one pound bag of
stir-fry plus 1/4 cup oil plus 4 hot dogs or sausages equals one meal
for me. (Not counting the ice cream for desert).

Guessing is a very accurate method.


I certainly believe that some foods are metabolized better than others,
or have calories that aren't easily extracted (they end up in the
commode in other words!), but I really question a 2:1 change and have
never seen any documentation that such a large delta is possible.


Unless I hear a better theory than mine, I'm sticking with it. Fat is
a complicated molecule and we can't burn fat - we burn glucose - which
is a simple carb. Complex carbs, such as sugar and starch, are very
easily converted into glucose. Howver, fats are a much more complex
process.

To reiterate my theory, I believe that carbs are necessary to
metabolize fat. Without carbs, the fat just goes down the toilet.
Given the drastic results that some people have realized with atkins,
its kind of like a knifeless stomach staple.

The short-term gains have been impressive in some people, but I don't
know of any who have doubled their calorie intake and still lost weight.
Some recent studies over the longer-term have shown that Atkins has
essentially no long-term advantage over other diets.

Matt