This article is on a Stanford study on low carb diets. It makes the point that low-carb diets work mostly because people consume fewer calories and stay on the diets longer (revolutionary concepts). I know that when I’ve fooled with low carb diets, I found consuming enough calories to be impossible.
Sorry, but I disagree with their conclusions. A similar article was in this week’s JAMA and said similar things.
Someday, HOPEFULLY, people will realize that a calorie isn’t a calorie. Low-carb diets don’t work soley because they cause a reduction in caloric intake. If that were the case, you could effectively lose body fat by consuming 3 Snickers bars a day.
I could go into the whole “calorie is not a calorie” thing, but that’s already been well put by JMB in previous articles.
duh.
I mean, every credible low carb books spells it out.
The a-typical dieter(non bodybuilder/athlete) who goes on a low carb protocol looses weight because the consume fewer calories.
Protein and Fat are satiating, thus you eat less.
Yeah, I have to say I agree with DocT on this one. Lower calories as the conclusion to why you lose weight? Ok, so say I am eating 160g protein, 100g carbs, and 40g fat=1400kcals, so I switch to low carb and eat more fat 160g protein, 20 carbs, 90g fat= 1530kcals. I also think that low carb works better for men then women. And in low carb Im talking 20g like Atkins low.
In regards to “when is a calorie not a calorie”, does the commonly published info on 4cal/g protein, 4cal/g carb, 9cal/g of fat already take into account the thermogenic properies of food? From what I’ve read the actual counts are 5.7cal/g protein, 4.3cal/g carb, 9.5cal/g fat. That’s more than just rounding error, especially for protein! Can anyone shed light on this?