Robert Kesterson wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:41:54 -0500, Ashley Moran  
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24, 2006, at 3:44 am, Robert Kesterson wrote:
>>
>>> Weight loss is related to limiting *calories*, regardless of 
>>> source.   Carbs and fats metabolize differently, but in the end, 
>>> weight loss is  dependent on a caloric deficit.
>>
>>
>> I thought it was fairly well established here that high-fat diets 
>> are  the best method of weight loss, regardless of calorific intake?
>
>
> My point was that limiting *calories* results in weight loss.  
> Limiting  carbs without restricting calories (ie, by replacing carb 
> calories with  fat calories) is just rearranging deck chairs.  (I 
> think a paleo diet that  includes reduced caloric intake is a 
> marvelous way to lose weight, btw.)
>
Well, yes, to a certain extent.  But haven't we all had situations where
we were eating lots of food and our weight was steady, and other times where
we were eating significantly less and didn't lose weight.  The body 
chooses to
a certain extent how much to save, how much to use, how much to throw away.
And for some of us, eating carbs stimulates the appetite to a wonderful
degree, whereas eating fat lessens the appetite.  For example, I can be lots
LESS hungry, eating much less food even calorie-wise, when the food is low
carb and high fat.

When you're in ketosis, you're throwing some of that fat away, so you
are wasting a certain number of calories.

That said, by golly, if you're eating tons of food without significant
exercising, even if it is as low-carb paleo as you can get, you won't lose
weight, you'll gain it.

    Lynnet