On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Erik Hill wrote:

> Dr. Atkins mentioned a study with teens.  I've looked it up before, but
> now can't find it.  The upshot was, that of the two groups (so putting
> the third control-group aside for a moment) of teens who dieted, the
> ones who ate a low-carb diet, but more calories, lost more weight than
> the ones who ate a high carb diet, but calorie restricted diet.  This
> was the first time I'd seen an actual study throw the calorie=weight
> equation into doubt.  Does anyone have any references to this one?

There are certainly studies that show that greater caloric
restriction does not necessarily result in greater weight loss. I
don't know of any that show weight loss without any caloric
reduction at all.  To put it another way, a hypocaloric diet
appears to be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient
condition for weight loss.  Furthermore, a lowcarb diet seems to
promote more fat loss and less muscle loss, which is important
(although not all studies support this).

My experience is that it is far too easy to overeat fatty
proteins, and thus to gain weight.  This would include things
like bacon and the wonderful organic salami I used to buy, and
chicken wings!, which I seemed to be able to eat by the buckets.
I'd love to be able to report that I could eat "all I want" of
such treats and still lose weight, but it just ain't so.  The
supreme weight-gainer was Ray's recommended paleo snack, pork
rinds dipped in almond butter.  This is delicious, and I could
easily consume an amazing amount of the stuff, and gained the
weight to show for it.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]