Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:21:12 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Gerard Farrell wrote:
> But Todd, you'll find that in non-metabolic ward studies the results are
> unreliable because the participants are self reporting what they have
> consumed. Metabolic ward studies have failed to show any difference in
> weight loss among isocaloric diets of varying macronutrient composition.
>
Well, there's this one,
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/290 which, although not on
a metabolic ward, did control food intake very tightly in a "special
diet table unit." And there is a significant difference in weight loss,
especially fat loss. (You can read the full text in PDF) The study is
small, but still valuable, in my opinion. I also note that unlike some
other metabolic ward studies, in this one the caloric deficit is not
severe. It's not a starvation diet. But as a general thing, my
interest in lowcarb is not related to any special calorie-cheating
properties they may or may not have. I'm interested in their effect on
insulin and all that that implies. I am convinced that reduction of
circulating insulin levels is the single most important thing that most
of us can to do restore or maintain our health.
> Don't buy into that kerrapp that says calories (or exercise for that matter)
> don't count. A lowcarb diet, Paleo or not, has an advantage alright. But
> it's not a metabolic advantage. If anything, it's a satiety advantage which
> will allow you consume fewer calories and, if these are low enough you will
> lose weight.
>
A satiety advantage *is* a metabolic advantage, in the sense that hunger
and satiety are important metabolic regulatory mechanisms. If a diet
alters them in a way that is to the dieter's advantage, that fact is
highly significant.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|