Does Atkins have a daily calorie restriction?

Thadreamer87

I'm not doing Atkins but still would like to know.

cwolfman13

I'm not doing Atkins but still would like to know.

No...most "diets" don't. They rely on the fact that you're restricting certain foods and/or certain macro-nutrients to create a calorie deficit unwittingly. When you cut carbs you unwittingly cut out a substantial number of calories....you also deplete your glycogen stores which is why low carbers lose so fast early on...they lose a lot of water and glycogen.

Boogage

Wouldn't think so going by the Atkins bar I ate yesterday to make up the calories for my non Atkins diet. The bar I ate had something like 240 cals and 17g of fat!

Binkie1955

Atkins restricts carbohydrates not calories. effectively however, if carbohydrates are restricted, the caloric intake tends to decline. however, you can lose weight by simply restricting carbohydrates and completely ignoring caloric counts. It's carbohydrates that drive the storage of fat by the body. in the absence of carbohydrates, the body doesn't produce sufficient quantities of insulin to effectively store excess carbohydrates as fat. Neither 'fat' or 'protein' is ever stored in the body as fat. excess quantities of either are excreted. so in the absence of carbohydrates there is nothing to store as fat and in the absence of carbohydrates there is no chemical system to store what's not there. make sense? good luck.

ryry_

Yes, but they do it in a sneaky way. If you stop losing, instead of telling you to eat less, they tell you stop eating nuts and cheeses. Instead of saying to only eat x amount of calories, they tell you to eat until your satisfied, not stuffed.

It's calorie restrictions without the counting of calories.

TheVimFuego

Not explicitly but you won't get far if you don't have one. Or create an energy gap with exercise, of course.

No metabolic magic in lowering the carbs, some people will spontaneously eat less if they follow it though due to restricted food options and to some extent increased protein intake.

it helps some people who have conditions like insulin resistance though.

I see it as a useful tool to be used and then a more sustainable balanced diet is the go ...

ryry_

Atkins restricts carbohydrates not calories. effectively however, if carbohydrates are restricted, the caloric intake tends to decline. however, you can lose weight by simply restricting carbohydrates and completely ignoring caloric counts. It's carbohydrates that drive the storage of fat by the body. in the absence of carbohydrates, the body doesn't produce sufficient quantities of insulin to effectively store excess carbohydrates as fat. Neither 'fat' or 'protein' is ever stored in the body as fat. excess quantities of either are excreted. so in the absence of carbohydrates there is nothing to store as fat and in the absence of carbohydrates there is no chemical system to store what's not there. make sense? good luck.

Your avatar is ironic, because if Jack Bauer were here you would be hunted by the CTU nutrition terrorism division.

AlabasterVerve

Weight loss without hunger

A LCHF diet makes it easier for the body to use its fat reserves, as their release is no longer blocked by high insulin levels. This may be one reason why eating fat gives a longer feeling of satiety than carbohydrates. It’s been shown in a number of studies: When people eat all they want on a low carb diet caloric intake typically drops

So, no counting or food weighing is necessary. You can forget about the calories and trust your feelings of hunger and satiety. Most people don’t need to count or weigh their food any more than they need to count their breathing. If you don´t believe it, just try for a couple of weeks and see for yourself.

Here's a link to a completely free guide to low carb eating if you're interested in reading more.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf

TheVimFuego

Atkins restricts carbohydrates not calories. effectively however, if carbohydrates are restricted, the caloric intake tends to decline. however, you can lose weight by simply restricting carbohydrates and completely ignoring caloric counts. It's carbohydrates that drive the storage of fat by the body. in the absence of carbohydrates, the body doesn't produce sufficient quantities of insulin to effectively store excess carbohydrates as fat. Neither 'fat' or 'protein' is ever stored in the body as fat. excess quantities of either are excreted. so in the absence of carbohydrates there is nothing to store as fat and in the absence of carbohydrates there is no chemical system to store what's not there. make sense? good luck.

A common misconception and I believed this for a while too.

It is entirely possible to pack on the fat in the absence of carbohydrate, there are other metabolic pathways that do no rely on the dreaded insulin (which, by the way, is not the evil 'fat storage hormone' some make it out to be).

It took me a while to see the other side of the argument but it is there.

At the end of the day the calorie gap is king.

hookilau

I count carbs instead of calories and there is indeed a huge caloric deficit created, though inadvertant. I can only handle 10 g max per meal so snacks must be half that otherwise my blood sugar goes bananas & takes a few hours to come down. Usually not down to the fasting level though.

I'm told too much protein will jack up my blood sugar as well through a process called glucogenesis. I say 'I'm told' because with the amount of fat & protein, coupled with veggies, I'm often full on what seems a pitiful amount of food, so I'@ve never tested how this works on me.

I should mention I'm a small woman, just 5' so it doesn't take much these days. 4 oz of traditional greek yogurt +1 tablespoon of sf preserves is enought to keep me full for 3 or 4 hours easily, not something that happened before I started restricting starch and sugar.