Seems to me that would work quite independently of how many “calories” you consume. It isn’t “calories” that set off insulin to begin with. And fat’s used for other things in addition to energy regardless of what diet you follow or which metabolic pathway you’re using.

It’s a shame nobody does direct studies about this anymore; it’s not like they couldn’t find an ethical way to do it. (If I could work out childcare, I’d volunteer as a human guinea pig for such a study in a hot minute.) I would be curious to know whether there is as wide a variation in so-called “calorie-burning” among people on VLC diets as there is among people following something closer to SAD.

But for my own anecdotal data, one of the times I underwent low-carbing I was well over 200 pounds (possibly close to 250, in fact–definitely over 200), at 5 ft 6 in. in height, could eat almost 3000 calories a day sometimes and still lose. Obviously it wasn’t too high in protein and I was essentially following Atkins at the time. Atkins himself documented in his book how one of his patients was eating huge amounts of beef almost daily and still dropping weight like a lead balloon. OK, he was a guy, and they lose weight faster, but I wasn’t much of a slouch myself. Got down to XL sized shorts before I gave it up for a reason I can’t even remember now.

I believe (I’d have to read it again) Atkins thought that the cheese and nuts you mention as “caloric” causes of weight retention on LC actually stalled weight loss because they contributed to an existing systemic Candida infection. And there may be other reasons unrelated to caloric intake. They *are* higher in carbs than meat and fat are, which could be an issue in some people as well. Still, I don’t know about you, but I can’t get very far eating cheese or nuts without feeling stuffed to the gills.

You’ve got to create a deficit to lose weight. But how that deficit is created is a tricky question. Some people who eat a lot of low-carb foods may substantially increase their metabolic rate and at the same time spontaneously become more active. Others may not, and, as a consequence, not lose. Others yet will find their hunger decreased on a low-carb diet and will eat less and create their deficit that way. People react differently, but somehow a deficit has to be created – whether from within or without – to bring about weight loss.

You may not be able to stream the show from outside the UK, but it is available as a downloadable bitorrent.

In any case, it was a very interesting but small scale study, which yielded some interesting outcomes regarding the physical and psychological states of some ‘naturally thin’ people here in the UK.

Hope you get an opportunity to check it out!

I would love to see it, but haven’t been able to do so. It’s not available here in the US.

I’m visiting this site nearly a year after the last comment was posted but hope you’ll notice this comment and respond.

As far as I know, researchers have always ignored what I call the “bacterial heat factor” (BHF). Organic gardeners, who make their own compost, know that when bacteria feed and multiply, they produce heat. Moreover, under anaerobic conditions such as found in the colon, energy-containing gasses such as methane are produced. Consequently, any calculation of total energy absorption from the small intestine must include the following: 1) heat lost during urination and defecation; 2) heat that diffuses into the body as waste material moves through the gut and; 3) energy ejected when gas is passed.

Perhaps the BHF explains (at least in part) why increases in caloric intake either translate into less weight weight gain than expected (metabolic advantage) or don’t translate into any weight gain at all. For example, BHF may explain the discrepancy between measured caloric intake and weight loss noted by Dr. Penelope J. Greene in her 2003 low-carb/low-fat comparison study. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/0310/20-lowcarb.html

Theoretically, bacterial activity in the gut is proportional to the amount of digested and undigested food calories that don’t get absorbed into the bloodstream. Moreover, the ability of the digestive system to transfer digested calories from the small intestine to the bloodstream depends upon physiological factors such as stomach size, intestinal surface area, and (I suspect) the number of receptor sites lining the small intestine.

In a 1981 FAO report entitled ENERGY ABSORPTION AND DIETARY FIBRE http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/004/M2763E/M2763E00.HTM the authors note that “Faecal energy losses arise from several sources, including endogenous waste material such as mucus and exfoliated mucosal cells, bacterial cell mass from the intestinal flora, and finally undigested food residues themselves.” Overfeeding likely generates proportionately more undigested food residue for bacteria to feed on.

The authors also noted that “The total available energy of a food may be defined simply as its heat of combustion, minus the heat of combustion of the faecal and urinary residues to which it gives rise.” I’d say that this is an oversimplification! They’ve ignored the BHF.

More recently, on page 3 of a February 2008 article published in Food Technology http://members.ift.org/NR/rdonlyres/E4378363-6C76-4CDE-A1BE-62B172F1BDD8/0/0208featfiber.pdf the authors note, “Heaton (1973) proposed that fiber acts as a physiological obstacle to energy intake through at least three mechanisms: 1) fiber displaces available calories and nutrients from the diet; 2) fiber increases chewing, which limits intake by promoting the secretion of saliva and gastric juice, resulting in an expansion of the stomach and increased satiety; and 3) fiber reduces the absorption efficiency of the small intestine.”

So, at least a few scientists know that the digestive system has limited ability to transfer calories from the small intestine to the bloodstream but most ignore the effect. And all of them ignore the BHF.

I can buy into the idea of BHF to an extent. But what about the weight loss that comes from consuming a zero-carb diet, i.e., an all-meat diet? There is no fiber in such a diet to feed the bacteria, so weight loss from that diet wouldn’t include much of a component from BHF. I guess what I’m saying is that I’m sure BHF contributes something, but not everything, towards the metabolic advantage that comes from overfeeding.

It’s a study in mice that has no bearing on what happens in humans. Mice aren’t designed to live on higher protein diets, so their response to them is a valid indication of what happens to humans.

MRE

Most people create a caloric deficit simply by going on a low-carb diet because the diet is so satiating. Some, however, can eat large enough amounts of low-carb foods to prevent weight loss, which may be what’s happening in your case. In my experience the three things that tend to sabotage low-carb diets are cheese, nuts and nut butters. People can consume huge numbers of calories of these foods without exceeding their carb limitation. If you are eating a fair amount of these foods and cut back on them, your weight loss should pick up.

I don’t eat all raw, as I’ve said before, but I have eaten raw beef, lamb, pork, chicken, salmon, shellfish, liver, eggs, milk, cheese, cream, and other things without any food poisoning. I’d say you’re more likely to get food poisoning from fast food and restaurant food high in processed vegetable oils, lunch meats, salad dressings, and things of that sort. I think the paranoia about microbes is rather silly. Humanity would be dead if it were true.

While all of this is interesting from an academic standpoint, it’s not something I’m going to base my daily life around. If it appears to happen to me; great, if not, I’m certainly not going to obsess over it and wonder what I’m doing wrong. It’s hard enough staying on VLC without stressing about other things out of my control.

Excellent decision.