[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I thought there was a metabolic advantage to low carbs? Here’s an excerpt for Jonny Bowden’s (PhD, CNS) ‘Living Low Carb’ book (before this quote, he explains the results of studies that go into the metabolic advantage…):
“Moral of the story: calories do count–but they’re not the whole story. Low-carb diets may have a metabolic advantage, but it’s not unlimited. In fact, it’s probably pretty small (200-400 calories, suggests Mike Eades). You can’t eat 12,000 calories a day if fat and protein and think you’re going to lose weight just because you’re on a low-carb diet. You still need to pay attention to calories. But you do have a bit–and I do mean a bit–of wiggle room on low-carb.”[/quote]
No metabolic advantage has been demonstrated in studies going back 70+ years where subjects are confined and have their meals monitored and allotted for 24/7.
Well, I can’t say “none”, really, since I haven’t read every single study in existence. But the VAST majority saw no difference in weight loss when calories and protein are controlled for.
Most studies that DO see a difference are the “free living” sort (as opposed to metabolic ward ones), in which all sorts of confounding factors can come into play. Even then, things often tend to even out in the long run.[/quote]
Hmm… well I just don’t think you are correct on there being NO metabolic advantage. Bowden says the opposite (as do others in his book which I will include in excerpts below); he says there is a metabolic advantage but it’s just not very big.
EXCERPT #1
“There are numerous examples of low-carbohydrate diets being more effective than low-fat diets with the same number of calories”, says Dr. Richard D. Feinman, PhD, professor or biochemisty at the SUNY Downstate Medical Center. “Everyone with good sense believes there’s a metabolic advantage,” adds my friend Mikes Eades, MD.
EXCERPT #2
One of the best studies I know of to demonstrate this is an ingenious one done by Penelope Greene at the Harvard School of Public Health in 2003. Here’s what she did.
Dr. Greene studied three groups of dieters. The first group went on a 1500-calorie-per-day low-fat diet (1,800 for men). The second group went on an 1,800=calorie low-carb diet (2,100 calories for men). If all calories are created equal, the second group–which consumed more calories–should have weighted a bit more at the end of the study than the first group.
They didn’t. Though both groups lost weight, the low-carb (higher-calorie) group actually lost a little more, despite the fact that over the 12-week study they ate an average of 25,000 calories more than the low-fat group.
But, you say, what about the third group?
Glad you asked, because here is where it gets interesting. Sharp-eyed readers might have noticed that the two groups discussed above actually differed in two variables, not just one. They ate different amounts of calories (1,500-1,800 for group one, 1,800-2,100 for group two), but they also ate different food–low-fat for group one, low-carb for group two.
What would happen, Dr. Greene wondered, if there was a third group that ate the same type of food as group two (low-carb) but the same number of calories as group one (1,500-1,800)?
And that, indeed, was the third group in the study. Low-carlorie and low-carb.
That group lost the most weight of all.
EXCERPT #3
I mentioned earier that a number of studies showed that low-carb diets have an advantage right out of the starting gate, when compared with conventional diets for weight loss. Time and again, we see low-carbers beating the competition at the six-month mark, only to see no substantial difference between the two groups by the end of a year or two. Why does this happen?
I don’t know, but I have a theory.
I think what happens is this: People do really well on their “protein and fat” carb-limited program, and stick with it pretty religiously for a few months. Then they get complacent. They think, hey, things are going pretty good, maybe I can add some carbs back. Before you know it, they’re eating that same "meat and eggs’ breakfast, but now they’ve got a few slices of toast with it, and maybe a glass of orange juice. They’re back to a high-calorie “mixed” diet, even though they’re still technically being treated by the researchers as members of the “low-carb” group. It’s no surprise that these folks gain their lost weight back. It’s actually a tribute to how well low-carb does that even staying on it even a little produces better results than not staying on it at all.
