You hit that nail on the head.  I know this from personal experience.  I
lost 120 lbs in 11 months and felt great and was planning on eating that way
forever.  But all of a sudden, I had some stress in my life and started to
slip and then just never went back and totally went back to eating my old
way of eating full of junk.  And as to be expected, I gained all that weight
back 8 years later. It's not rocket science.

Kim


On 10/24/07, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:06, Todd Moody wrote:
> >
> >>> The New York Times (who published Taubes' original article)
> >>> reviewed the book a fortnight ago. They regarded it as
> >>> sloppily researched and ignoring inconvenient but
> >>> well-substantiated evidence that did not fit Taubes' thesis.
> >>>
> >>> Any comments on that from those who have read it?
> >>>
> >>> Keith
> >>
> >>I haven't read the NYT review, so I can't comment on the
> >>particulars, but "sloppily researched" doesn't fit at all.
> >>Todd Moody
> >>[log in to unmask]
> >
> > Here's a link to the New York Times' review:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2tnzlk
>
> Thanks for the link.  That review is, for the most part, rubbish.  For
> example, in defense of the "calorie is a calorie" thesis Kolata cites the
> Hirsch studies from the 1950s and 1960s, but fails to mention body
> composition.  Although most of my painstakingly collected reprints were
> destroyed by office flooding not so long ago, I'm pretty sure I recall
> that *fat* loss was not independent of macronutrient composition.
> Numerous other studies (such as Charlotte Young's, in about 1970, which
> Taubes mentions) have shown that the amount of lean tissue lost is
> directly proportional to the percentage of carbohydrate eaten.  Moreover,
> Kolata doesn't address the issue of the caloric threshold at which weight
> loss takes place, which apparently depends upon diet composition.  Again,
> my papers are all gone, but I recall studies that show that weight loss
> occurs, albeit slowly, at higher caloric intake, on lowcarb diets.
>
> The most telling sentence in the review is "If low-carbohydrate diets are
> so wonderful, why is anyone fat? Most people who struggle with their
> weight have tried these diets and nearly all have regained everything they
> lost, as they do with other diets. What is the problem?"  Only a
> knucklehead would write a sentence like that.  The answer is simple,
> lowcarb diets are wonderful but nobody ever said they are easy to follow.
> They're not, especially in a culture that misses no opportunity to put
> sugars and starches in front of you.  Dieting is psychologically
> difficult, regardless of the diet followed.
>
> Todd Moody
> [log in to unmask]
>