Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:38:17 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Dori Zook wrote:
> Her basic conclusion is that "weight loss is independent of dietary
> composition" (her words). Translation; it's the calories, stupid. However,
> a few sentences later, she admitted that "people who 'self-select' low-carb
> diets tend to reduce energy intake"(her words). This literally means they
> eat less calories.
Somebody should also tell her to look at the few studies that
track *fat* loss, as opposed to just weight loss. Indeed, if the
USDA study doesn't do that it is worthless. It is body
composition changes that we should be after.
Her "self-selection" point may be valid, however. The people who
self-select low-carb diets may do so because they instinctively
feel better on them, and thus have better appetite control. A
similar phenomenon may be at work with other kinds of diets,
where self-selection is involved.
> Have you done the math yet? She admitted more than once that studies have
> shown the benefits of a meat-based diet (lower triglycerides, for one) and
> that people who use them eat fewer calories, overall, than those who don't.
> Yet she endorsed AHA dietary guidelines which tout the benefits of high
> complex carb intake. Do with it what you wish.
Obviously she's going to argue that whatever value low-carb diets
have is mainly a result of caloric reduction. She thinks you can
get comparable or better results from the same caloric reduction
in a higher-carb diet. She chooses to ignore the variable of the
difficulty of sustaining the caloric reduction (for some people)
on the higher-carb diet.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|