An interesting question:

I've read the most important thing to look at when trying to lose weight is CALORIES. However, you can be on or under your calorie intake, but still be over, say, you sugar, fat, or carb intake, sometimes by a lot. So then what? If you're under the "biggie" (your calories), and thus, ok, but over other categories, does that mean you'll lose or gain weight? I've been on target or under my calorie allowance but over one or two others. So does that mean I won't lose weight?

If you have a caloric deficit, you'll lose weight. Doesn't matter if you get all your calories from fat, sugar, or what have you.

Now, from a nutritional perspective, getting 100% of your calories from fat or sugar is pretty undesirable. You're the one who picked your targets for fat / sugar / carbs - what were you hoping to get out of those targets? If you're over on one or more of them, are you still going to meet your nutritional goals?

I'm usually in the range I want to be for macronutrients (and micronutrients, for the most part) when you look at a week at a time. But on any given day, I may be heavy on one thing or light on another. That's not a big deal, at least not to me.

__________________

i am still learning all of this .. but the way i seem to be understanding it ... is keep the carbs under control if your main goal is to loose weight ... but if you are wishing to build muscle as well .. then eat some extra carb'd foods after workouts ...

__________________

Well I've just been trying to eat better. My weakness is sweets. And I know that eating too much of those categories is not nutritional. But since I've been over in sugar intake, but my calories have been good (1387 for today), I thought that would kill my diet.
My whole problem is getting rid of a belly and love handles...I care about that more than losing weight, as I'm not really overweight. But nothing I do is helping. Thus I allow myself to have some chocolates b/c nothing is working so I think 'what the hell?'
I've been told I don't eat enough but I've been trying to eat more and it's gotten worse...I'm not able to fit into some of my clothes, as I can barely get them over my thighs and hips.
I just can't figure what I'm doing wrong for nothing to happen.

Well, you've got a couple of issues going on.

First, if you don't exercise much, you probably don't have a huge caloric deficit. For example, the online calculator I use says maintenance for me at goal weight, with a sedentary lifestyle, is a whopping 1,500 calories per day.

Second, you aren't waiting nearly long enough to know if your plan is working. If I ate 1,400 calories a day, it would take more than a month for me to lose a pound of "real" weight - and probably 4-6 months of steady loss at that rate to have enough loss that it stood out from random scale fluctuation. And that's assuming that my body didn't say "Hey! What's with the less food?" and subtly encourage me to sit instead of stand, walk instead of run, sleep a few minutes longer, and otherwise conserve those 100 calories a day.

Third, you can't "spot reduce." There's no way to lose fat from specific places without losing it everywhere else - and those specific places are likely to be spots you're genetically inclined to gain first and lose last.

I vote for regular exercise, myself. And if you're growing out of your clothes, eating too few calories is probably not the reason, people on the internet notwithstanding.

__________________

And I know I cannot spot reduce, so I'd lose fat all over. And I do exercise. Cardio 2-3 times/week, then abs/arms or abs/legs twice/week. That's why I'm confused. Since I've generally been eating better (about 4 years) I've gained weight. Like I'm being punished for being good. Ohhhkaaay. That's fair....
So it boils down to:
I eat 1400 cal/day
My basal metabolic rate is about 1346.2.
Leaves a surplus of around 54 calories.
I walk about 35 min/day. (85 cal burned)
I either exercise or do weights almost every day (65 cal)
= Deficit of 96 calories!!
Still gain fat on my middle.

So, I've been reading the forums about macronutrients (mainly misconceptions) and what not for my thesis in my masters program. I've run into a few of your posts about sugar/fats/carbs...

At anyrate, Let's say your correct with your math and calculations... it would take you over 35 days to lose a pound... How do you know you are gaining fat around the middle? Are you taking measurements?

__________________
The New Journey Begins... June 1st, 2008.

To keep it simple...

1). A calorie deficit is absolutely imperative to establish weight loss (excluding temporary water loss);

2) Hypocaloric high-carb and low-carb diets of equal caloric content do not produce any difference in the rate of fat loss (hypocaloric = fewer calories);

3) Carbs do not and cannot explain recent increases in obesity rates, for per capita carbohydrate intake in the US is similar today to what it was in 1909. People did not suddenly switch from eating zero-carb diets to high carb diets - in fact, the average American never ate a zero-carb or even low-carb diet.

Per capita caloric intake is higher now, but activity levels have decreased since 1909. That is why obesity rates have increased.

Thank you Anthony Colpo.

You might like to peruse a free 66 page booklet by Colpo in pdf format entitled They're All MAD .

Debunks the "metabolic advantage" nonsense put forth by the likes of Atkins and Eades that claim it's possible to gain weight on a high-carbohydrate diet but lose weight on a low-carbohydrate diet even when the 2 diets contain the exact same number of calories.

I do not disagree with the metabolic advantage theory put forth by ketosis diets at all!

You can't use basic thermodynamics when it comes to our bodies because different macronutrients do different things within the body, so while a CALORIE is just a CALORIE, how that macronutrient is metabolized can be very different.

The real reason ketosis diets are more effective at weight-loss in the short term is due to the HIGH protein content of those diets. Protein turn around is beneficial for weight-loss, which is why you find Steve recommending to a lot of people getting in 1 gram per pound (TBW or LM); basically if you have more protein floating in your blood stream at all times, it won't go for the muscle stored in your body, so it then turns to the fat stores first. Also, ketosis diets are usually in a caloric deficeit as well, the trade off being refined carbs (snacks, pizzas) being eliminated and being replaced with vegetables (low in carbohydrates). Still, the negative effects of those plans (hypertension, and cholesterol and triglycerides levels to name a few) are much risker than the weight-loss benefits (which could have been achieved via LCDs).

Further more, it's rare for you to find someone who has sustained a weight-loss of 30 pounds or more for six years within the National Weight-loss Registry that was on a ketosis diet. There just isn't a sensible way to maintain and stay healthy on those plans.

So someone who is on Atkins, vs a LCD, will actually lose weight quicker... in the same amount of time (for the same amount of calories). But then go look at those two people a year later and see where they are at...

__________________
The New Journey Begins... June 1st, 2008.

Well said Darth Pooh!

Also if you measure the cholesterol in Atkins dieters, you will see that they may look better but their body is nto happy! Atkins dieters have been shown to be hypercholesteremic, which leads to clogged arteries, heart attacks etc...
(you can read up on it here: http://www.westhertshospitals.nhs.uk...EJM%202003.pdf).
Initially cholesterol and triglycerides go down because the person is losing weight, but not many studies have followed them up for long enough to see what happens after 3-6 months. However epileptic children on a version of Atkins have shown to have more heart problems (arrythmias) and cholesterol problems than their peers on normal diets.
Camy

__________________

Heh, it appears you and I have been reading the same JAMA articles. Interestingly enough, you will find that only 1 in 6 of those kids had an acceptable cholesterol or triglyceride level while on their ketosis diets... problem is, like Camy said, there haven't been too many clinical trials that explore past the six month mark.

__________________
The New Journey Begins... June 1st, 2008.

Thanks for your post.
Actually, yes I have been taking measurements.
And I recently got a metabolic test done (where you breathe into a tube) and it said my metabolic rate was high. And to lose weight I have to eat between 1200 and 1400 cal. They advised against going as low as 1200 b/c it may negatively affect my metabolism.
So I've been logging my foods and taking measurements. I went down to 1350 cal/day. Plus exercise.
Sometimes I'd go over my calorie amt but b/c of the calories burned exercising, I still end up at 1350 or below.
Anyway, I did lose 3 lbs but I don't know if its fat or muscle. My tummy looks just 'slightly' smaller (namely the area between the waist and hips, which, ironically, is never called for in measurements; eg, my waist and hips may stay the same, but inbetween can fluctuate. They should have a log for that!)
But my jeans are still tight and there are some I cannot get into. Now THAT is depressing.

Def not losing muscle... and you need to stay vigilant and keep your goals in focus. Once you do that, those jeans will easily fit in no time...

It just seems now that you have your facts straight and you are really logging and weighing your food. You are seeing results and they will pay off in the end...

Good luck!

__________________
The New Journey Begins... June 1st, 2008.

Sorry Doc, I don't agree with these statements. There are plenty of studies out there that prove Ketogenic diets do result in a greater loss of fat, its just all the negatives that go along with it that aren't worth the diet. Also they have linked that the ketogenic diets go hand in hand with a HIGH PROTEIN diet which leads to the increased rate of weight-loss (protein turnover). I do not advocate these types of diets either... but there is def a metabolic advantage to them, but protein can be paired with good carbohydrates and have the same effect (which is what Atkins and Eades claim to be untrue).

__________________
The New Journey Begins... June 1st, 2008.

Exactly my thoughts. I've read and done studies in a number of journals including JAS and the like. Short term benefits are high, but lasting physical effects are greatly negative. Ketosis is a bad state to be in and people tend to ignore this. Ketosis is one of the final stages in starvation before you die. Ketones overstress the kidneys and the liver needlessly for a quick metabolic boost. That's just plain silly to me. Something is awry is when you have to perform the dietary equivalent of a chicken-wing armlock to get your body to deaminate proteins rather than efficient CHO/lipid utilization.