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]