A science blog with Eric Berger

Well, duh. It’s the calories stupid.





Win the battle of the bulge.






Categories: Health
Eric Berger

31 Responses

  1. O. C. Jones says:

    Ornish says the study is seriously flawed.

  2. ttyler5 says:

    Great advice, Eric!

    Every pro trainer I know will tell you the same!

    Here is the USDA calorie burner chart:

    And here’s one of the online calorie counters I use because it’s got a pretty extensive list (I don’t know what they are selling, and I don’t care!!! :^D :^D :^D :

    BTW, we have in the last year or so also switched to all the low-fat/no fat and artificially sweetened products like Smart Balance.

    A favorite desert:

    fresh strawberries (with artificial sweetener) and low fat/sugar free whipped topping over “sugar free-fat free” chocolate or other flavor Jell-O and low fat/sugar free cake

    It’s delicious and easy to burn off the less than 200 calories.

  3. Doug2 says:

    You forgot the other half of the equation. Exercise. The mantra should be sensible diet and moderate exercise. You will lose weight.

  4. Ed T. says:


    Dr. Berger, I am sure my endocrinologist will enjoy hearing this!


  5. Steve says:

    I agree Eric, it’s a very easy formula:

    Weight Loss = Output > Input

    Output = Total Calories Burned

    Input = Total Calories Consumed

  6. Eric Berger says:


    Thanks for the link. I’m shocked … SHOCKED … that Ornish would quibble with a study that found his diet wasn’t as efficient at weight loss as others.

    However, I must say I consider that study a bit silly. The more interesting one, IMO, is the one concerning high-GI foods versus low-GI. That finding verifies the calories-in, calories-out theory.


  7. Eric Berger says:

    Ed T.,

    Your endocrinologist will rightly tell you that, in some ways, a low-GI diet is more healthy than a high-GI diet. I have no quarrel there.

    But if you want lose weight, as the new study shows, it doesn’t matter what you eat as long as it’s the same amount of calories.


  8. When do we get the magic pill that corrects all nutritional and dietary offenses? You know, the one that allows me to gorge on chips and beer and tacos and chicken wings and ice cream and regain the sleek belly and tireless energy I once had? I want my magic pill!

    Seriously, you’re quite right about the calorie in/calorie expended equation. Years ago, I read an article about the Irish potato famine. It said that the average adult male in Ireland consumed 10 pounds of potatoes a day. That’s one of the reasons that the potato blight had such an effect on history.

    People consumed huge amounts of calories back then, but it was burned up in incredibly hard physical labor.

    I don’t want to go back to those times, but unfortunately we still eat, to a certain degree, like we did back then. We have gone from economic and disease problems of scarcity to those of abundance, and we haven’t adjusted to it. No easy answers, because our ancestors evolved in times of periodic scarcity of food and now that the all-you-can-eat buffet is out there, we are collectively gorging ourselves.

  9. O. C. Jones says:

    Eric, I think you’d find that most all cardiologists agree with Ornish about the Atkins way of eating.

  10. Eric Berger says:


    I don’t disagree in regards to the health benefits of the Ornish diet versus Atkins.

    The data point in question, however, is weightloss, not incremental cardiac benefits.


  11. Kent A says:

    Funny, I ate more Calories per day on the Atkins Diet than on a strict low Calorie (1400/day) and lost considerably more weight (over 210 pounds). I was also more successful in keeping it off. If it was simply a Calories In – Calories Out argument, my experience was the opposite. Metabolism has huge role in weight loss, and ignoring or glossing over that by simply saying out “Calories Out” is a disservice to most dieters.

    As for doctors being anti-Atkins or pro-low fat, mine certainly was not. He could not be happier with my progress or my blood work.

  12. Eric Berger says:


    A couple of questions, if I may:

    1. How long did you remain on the Atkins diet, versus the low-calorie diet?

    2. How many calories were you eating per day on the Atkins diet?

    I’m glad you found something that worked for you.


  13. Kent A says:


    Could you report what the diet is correctly as well? Lambasting Atkins Diet as only Meat/Cheese is so 2003. I eat more vegetables now than before, and there is no phase that eliminates them either.

  14. I didn’t maintain a calorie count when I did Atkins, but I can attest that the weight does come off pretty fast. I lost thirty pounds on it, but when I came off it, I gained 25 back fairly quickly.

  15. Kent A says:

    I have been on the Atkins Diet for 3 years now, and was on a variety of diets beforehand. The longest one was low Cal for 4 months. I lost 10 pounds over that 4 months time span, and I personally think my body went went into starvation mode on the original doc recommended diet. (switch docs after that)

    In the beginning, according to (another Calorie/macro-nutrient tracking place) my initial Calories were 3500-4500 per day. This was indeed less than my Basal Metabolic Rate, but as I said much higher (by up to 2000 Cal) than the low Calorie plan I was on.

  16. Mark UK says:

    I’m just happy that because of the Atkins diet it is now possible to get actually some real vegetables in restaurants in the States. Before all you could get in most places was potatoes…. Fried, mashed, deepfried, etc.

  17. Eric Berger says:

    Kent A,

    I would say your experience is the exception rather than the rule, but I appreciate you sharing it. I’m also not sure you really were eating 3,500 to 4,500 calories a day — that’s *a lot* of bacon and vegetables — but like I said, if it worked for you that’s great.

    As for my ridiculing the diet being “so 2003,” well, the diet itself seems somewhat dated. It’s popularity has clearly declined. I think it’s partly because most people can’t live without a little sugar and bread in their diets. I know I cannot. It’s clear the diet works in the short term. But what good is a diet for most people if they cannot stick to it?


  18. Steve says:

    I lost 130 pounds counting calories and weighing myself every day. I’ll stand by the formula of less input and more output. But if a person finds it easier to count carbohydrates then calories, then by all means use it to restrict caloric input (as Eric states, what works for you). But from a general health standpoint, I favor more vegetables, fruits and lean meats in that order.

  19. Tyger says:

    You’re comparing apples and oranges here–Atkins doesn’t count calories, it counts carbs, to a point. Nobody get it–you drop your carbs and work your way back up until you find the set-point at which you have to stop the carb increase. You DO eat veg, you just control the type.

    It’s not about just calories because the body doesn’t know just “calories.” It’s much more complicated than that. If it were just calories, I’d be eatin’ chocolate all day long. No, you need other nutrients that Slim-Fast and skim milk just don’t provide. (That combo is all sugar, BTW.)

    White flour, high-fructose corn syrup, and other manufactured junk food is what’s causing the obesity thing–not Atkins. Atkins fell out of favor when the media, coupled with big pharma and a few large agri-businesses, ran a propaganda campaign to stop it because way too many folks were losing weight and getting better. Can’t have that, when Nutri-System costs so much more for the same or less results!!

    Oh, and there are other factors too, i.e. hormones. Ask me, I know. . .


  20. Edie Goodwin says:

    Hmmm…interesting that it’s all men that say how easy it is to drop a few….factor in age and diabetes to the hormonal mix and you might see a different POV, but you are right about what and how much one eats as the key. Everything in moderation… (I hate that idea!)I did well on Atkins a few years ago until my kidneys went wacko. I opted for the surgery and am 84 pounds down in 10 months and counting, but it’s a lot easier to just cut back and exercise more if you can keep it off that way. I couldn’t.I found this today on one of my regular blog reads:

    "Fat: What No One Is Telling You" a new 90-minute PBS documentary airs today. (Click here for schedules and more info). (The Morbid Me).

  21. PDQPete says:

    Suppose the Atkins diet works better for certain people than others?

    Suppose the same is true for Orbish’s diet?

    Suppose the Weight Watchers(tm)(sm)(r) diet works at least a bit for most people–but that some people might do better on Ornish? Or Atkins?

    Impossible. That would imply that different people have, I don’t know, slightly different metabolisms, or something ridiculous like that!

    No, no, obviously there is but One True Diet. And when Pharoah commands us to make bread without carbs, we shall go forth into a land flowing with Milk and Butter!

    And when Hollywood makes our story into a movie, Charlton Heston can play the role of Dr. Atkins.

  22. Walt says:

    I’m not sure if I have this correct, but with a modified Atkins, it’s going to be just the calories involved. With the classic Atkins, you go into ketosis, which (and I am not a doctor, just someone who’s tried the diet) is where the body burns calories inefficiently, meaning the body may burn calories in a different fashion. Additionally, when a person is on Atkins, additional exercise makes it easier to go into that ketosis state.

    I have high cholesterol, and for a time even went through one of the cholesterol study programs down at Baylor, and on a low fat diet supervised by a nutritionist in that study, my cholesterol went _up_. Years after I left that medical study, I went on the strictest part of the Atkins diet and significantly lowered my cholesterol. Staying on Atkins was very difficult, though. Going solely by my anecdotal results, if you’re on an Atkins diet, but not in ketosis, I wouldn’t expect significantly lower cholesterol levels.

  23. Mark UK says:

    Didn’t somebody report that the real effect from the Atkins diet is caused by the high proteine conetn of the food, resulting in people on the diet actually eating less (fewer calories) as the feel “full” quicker… Anyway, any diet can bring your weight down if you stick to it. The only thing that really works is a life style change that you can sustain. Eat in moderation and get of your backside…

  24. Kent A says:

    >>most people can’t live without a little sugar and bread in their diets

    After the Induction phase of the Atkins Diet, I don’t believe the book says you can’t. What it does say, you have to find your critical carb level for losing. In fact there is a grain and starchy vegetable rung of the diet where you are encouraged to eat bread or potatoes if you want to find out how your body reacts to them. Some people can obviously eat to higher level than others.

    I too agree with PDQPete there is not one approach that necessarily works for everyone. I make a comment very similar to that in my video ( I am no more diet bigot anymore as I tried them all. I just would not want a viable solution for someone discounted out of hand.

    Any solution you find for yourself has to be something that changes how you eat long term. It works for me personally to eat this way as I personally like steak and broccoli, and for that pleasure, I can forego eating bad Chinese food like General Tso’s Chicken.

    As to why I think the Atkins Diet works, I think it puts the eater in control of what they are eating for the first time. If you can restrict yourself initially for 14 days what you are eating, you have demonstrated pretty control. The rest of the diet and your life in general is just about exhibiting that control as you add new foods back into it. If it reacts you negatively, you eat less of it. It made sense to me.

  25. Bethany Joy says:

    I am going to say EXERCISE loudly and clearly, because it’s my job to say it:


    Plus, I do know people who diet for more than the shape of their thighs. Getting your cholesterol under control and increasing your ability to walk from the car to the store without huffing and puffing are great motivations too.

  26. Deviant says:

    Exercise is great for health, but implicated too much in weight loss. Eating less is all that it takes. Unfortunately, exercise is used as an excuse to reward oneself to eat more.

    Dieting is viewed as too difficult. Exercise is too hard to maintain. So failure is the result.

    The ONE answer is discipline while consuming no more than using. (and consuming less for loss)

  27. Scott says:

    Wow, this topic is bringing out names I’ve never seen before. Nice selection, Eric!

    I’m going to go on the “SciGuy Snickers for Breakfast” diet that you mentioned. Maybe I’ll vary it with M&Ms for lunch and Krispy Kreme for dinner. Yeah, I like this one! :-)

    Seriously, my gastroenterologist told me the only diet that he has seen consistent results from across large numbers of patients is Weight Watchers. I go on and off it myself, lose 4 pounds, gain 2 pounds, etc., but I’m not really following it because I just get too darned hungry and/or stressed at work.

  28. Stan says:

    Well my doc finally got me on Lovastatin – it appears to be a good statin – but now I’ve gone back to Blue Bell – hell, who wants to live to be a hunderd without ice cream!

    I do exercise a lot – cycling and freediving!

  29. Miz RD says:

    Strawberries are great and good for you. Artificial sweeteners, fat-free substitutes for foods that are supposed to be fatty, fake this and substitute that are not. Sweeten the fresh berries sparingly with genuine sugars or honey, allow yourself a tablespoon or so of real cream whipped by hand (works off the calories), and SAVOR the real flavors. Buy and prepare real foods, season them with genuine herbs and spices, and prepare them simply. You will enjoy the reality of the flavor, aroma and texture — and find that you won’t be as prone to snarf down double or triple portions of the fake stuff in the search for satisfaction.

  30. Corey says:

    So obviously this is a little more complicated than just calories in/out or high-carb/low-carb.

    Does anyone know if there have been any studies on the weight/health effects of processed vs. unprocessed foods? You know, wheat flour using the entire wheat berry, rice using the whole grain, whole foods etc. I know whole foods are becoming popular but surely these things are better in their entirety, right?

    What about evolutionary effects? Wouldn’t Native Americans’ bodies be more suited to plants and animals that are native to North America? Not that many people can trace their genetic makeup to a single, or even a few, ethnic groups.

    That said, I think my problem is pretty simple. When I eat enough to get full and there’s still food on my plate, guess what. I keep eating. Oh yeah, and I prefer sitting down to exercise. It;s just so much easier.

  31. Rob says:

    I agree w/ above, calories in = calories out. BUt it’s not that simple, as you noted. Why doesn’t cutting your diet to 500 calories a day help you lose weight? (Because your metabolism drops significantly to match). If you increase your metabolism and simultaneously decrease your caloric intake, that’s the best way (we’ve heard that for years). However, if you simply start exercising, and don’t change your diet (in which you are not gaining weight at all rapidly, ie calories in does equal calories out), that is also an effective way to lose weight. Every year (well, not this year, but still) I train for the MS150 for three months. My diet doesn’t change too much, but I start biking up to 100 miles a week. That provides a rather rapid and effective weight loss (but as soon as you stop, your weight rockets up again).