On Wed, 24 October 2007 23:53, Todd Moody wrote:

>>In most of the studies that I can recall, when
calories are held constant, difference in macronutrient composition makes
a small difference in absolute weight lost, but a greater difference in
type of weight lost.<<

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.

How many times have you read, on this list, people who are eating lowcarb
Paleofood and who just can't shift their weight? It is because they are
consuming too many calories of the lowcarb food for their needs.

I don't know if the Atkins forum is still running, but I remember when I was

on it, people were always talking about reaching a 'plateau'. "I eat only
half a cow a day and no carbs and I just can't shift my weight." 

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. 
I won't be buying Taube's book. 

Gatsby