Low-carb dieters eat more calories and still lose weight

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Calories mean squat. Check out this story:

canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗

quote:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on
standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't it?

TC

"The low-carb meals were five per cent carbohydrate, 15 per cent protein and 65 per cent fat."

5% + 15% + 65% = 85%

Where did the other 15% of their calories go?

[email hidden] (September) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Calories mean squat. Check out this story:

canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗

quote:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on
standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't it?

TC

"The low-carb meals were five per cent carbohydrate, 15 per cent protein and 65 per cent fat."

5% + 15% + 65% = 85%

Where did the other 15% of their calories go?

Just checked several other news sources, they all use the same numbers. Must've been a typo in the
original news story that went out on the wire service, which all the news services pick up. I'm
still trying to find an online copy of the study. If anyone out there finds one, please post it.

TC

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Calories mean squat. Check out this story:

canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗

quote:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on
standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't it?

TC

Comments🙁thanks to September for pointing out the major discrepancy)

aside from that,
1)the study is only 1/3rd the size of GD Foster's, and 1/4th the amount of time. GD Foster (the
largest and best study to interpret atkins so far) found no difference between low-carb and
low-kcal after one year. GD Foster is extending his study to 5 years - we hope extending the diets
will be able to show some difference, hopefully. GD Foster is cited as being pro low fat in the
article, interestingly.

2)did they test the significance of 17lbs vs. 23lbs especially considering their sample size is only
7ppl on each diet? It seems to detect a significant difference of such a small amount of lb
difference would need a larger sample size, certainly more than 7ppl. (I don't have time to
calculate whether it is an underpowered estimate but it seems like it -they should have commented
on this) Also, is it clinically significant. Especially when we have *proven* evidence of benefit
from low-fat even when there is no weight loss, whereas not much evidence from low-carb of
benefits in terms of real endpoints (like diabetes-risk), I won't go into serum markers of benefit
as this is not a "real" endpoint.

3)Like the other poster pointed out what happened to being very low fat(<<30%) and high fiber. High
fiber, low-GI diets can *reduce* bodyweight and improve serum hdl/tag/ldl. Very low-fat diets have
been shown much more convincingly than low-carb to reduce bodyweight *even when* the calories of
the diet are kept the same. (by no means a defiance of the calorie principle either)

4) MOst of the fat in the low-carb diet was *added* oils, do the added oils stay on by next morning?
I mean the menu for low-carb was "salad", chicken fish.. The meats were lean, as they point out
the diet was low in animal fat..

5)*true* metabolic trials have shown no difference between low-carb and low-fat in terms of weight
loss. this study is *far* from being controlled, obviously.

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Calories mean squat. Check out this story:

canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗

quote:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on
standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't it?

TC

Gee, sure got quiet in ng all of a sudden. Especially from pbeyer, wuzzy and the always opinionated
mooshie as well as many others who are always ready to show their brilliant and all encompassing
knowledge of the nutritional sciences. All of you guys should remember how I proposed, 'bout a year
ago or more, the possibility of being able to consume more calories on a low-carb diet than on a
low-fat diet and losing more weight. But you guys were adamant that it was a scientific
impossibility. It contravenes the second Law of Thermodynamics, according to you guys. You guys
insisted that it was a simple concept calories-in vs. calories-out. According to you guys,
macronutritional ratios has way too minuscule an effect on metabolism to be a factor in weight
management.

This study showed that one can eat 300 calories more on a low-carb diet and still lose more weight
than those on the low-fat diet. 300 calories. The difference in the women in the study was from 1500
to 1800 calories. 300/1500=.2*100=20%. Twenty percent more calories on a low-carb diet is as
effective for weight loss as the low-fat diet. For the guys they were given 1800 calories on the
low-fat diet and 2100 on the low-carb diet and they still lost more weight. 300/1800=16.6%. Sixteen
point six percent more calories and they still lost more weight on the loe-carb diet.

If the second Law of Thermodynamics was applicable to the human body, this would be absolutely
impossible. The Law is supposed to be universal. Even one instance disproving it is all that is
needed raise serious questions as to its applicability in weight management in humans.

I will say it again, the second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to *closed* systems, the human
body is an *open* system. It does not apply to weight management in humans.

The insulin/glucagon balance triggers the body to store fat independently of the calculated amount
of calories consumed. Refined carbohydrates in the diet does two things, 1) triggers the body to
store fat and to not use fat and 2) provides plenty of raw material for the body to convert to fat.
Even if the amount of food consumed is a relatively small number of calories, if it is refined
carbohydrates, it will store as much of it as possible as fat. Every first year nutrition textbook
will state in its first chapter that carbohydrates are converted to bodyfat.

Conversely, if the meal is low in carbs the insulin response will be much smaller and the body will
not be triggered to store fat and it will, in fact, use fat as fuel. Also a low-carb diet will
contain a higher amount of fat which does not trigger the body to store bodyfat and in fact is
essential to trigger the body to feel satiated. A low-refined-carb diet will also contain more
protein, which the body needs for good health.

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for refined carbohydrates in the diet. It is not required in
any quantity. They do not contain any useful micro-nutrients, in fact they deplete many necessary
vitamins and minerals.

TC

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

This study showed that one can eat 300 calories more on a low-carb diet and still lose more weight
than those on the low-fat diet. 300 calories. The difference in the women in the study was from
1500 to 1800 calories. 300/1500=.2*100=20%. Twenty percent more calories on a low-carb diet is as
effective for weight loss as the low-fat diet. For the guys they were given 1800 calories on the
low-fat diet and 2100 on the low-carb diet and they still lost more weight. 300/1800=16.6%.
Sixteen point six percent more calories and they still lost more weight on the loe-carb diet.

lol, yes, i can see that the authors don't believe kcal's don't have to add up! This is funny
considering they really think their study shows anything about kcal balance..

[email hidden] (wuzzy) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Calories mean squat. Check out this story:

canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗

quote:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on
standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't it?

TC

Comments🙁thanks to September for pointing out the major discrepancy)

aside from that,
1)the study is only 1/3rd the size of GD Foster's, and 1/4th the amount of time. GD Foster (the
largest and best study to interpret atkins so far) found no difference between low-carb and
low-kcal after one year. GD Foster is extending his study to 5 years - we hope extending the
diets will be able to show some difference, hopefully. GD Foster is cited as being pro low fat
in the article, interestingly.

They did find a difference between low-carb vs low-cal. There were several pounds difference. You
guys just seem to conveniently choose to ignore it. This study appears to be significantly better
controlled than the GD Foster study. The GD Foster study just gave the participants some information
about the respective diets they were supposed to follow and told them to follow it with little or no
further attempts to monitor or control food intake. This study actually had the food prepared for
them on a daily basis.

Quoted message said:

3)did they test the significance of 17lbs vs. 23lbs especially considering their sample size is
only 7ppl on each diet? It seems to detect a significant difference of such a small amount of lb
difference would need a larger sample size, certainly more than 7ppl. (I don't have time to
calculate whether it is an underpowered estimate but it seems like it -they should have
commented on this) Also, is it clinically significant. Especially when we have *proven* evidence
of benefit from low-fat even when there is no weight loss, whereas not much evidence from
low-carb of benefits in terms of real endpoints (like diabetes-risk), I won't go into serum
markers of benefit as this is not a "real" endpoint.

There is very little real *proven* evidence of any benefit from low-fat diets. The "science" behind
that whole pile of nonsense is very suspect. But that is not the point of this particular
discussion.

Quoted message said:

4)Like the other poster pointed out what happened to being very low fat(<<30%) and high fiber.
High fiber, low-GI diets can *reduce* bodyweight and improve serum hdl/tag/ldl.

Which means exactly what I've been saying. Cut out high-GI carbs and you will lose weight and be
healthier.

Quoted message said:

Very low-fat diets have been shown much more convincingly than low-carb to reduce bodyweight
*even when* the calories of the diet are kept the same. (by no means a defiance of the calorie
principle either)

NO. Low-fat diets fail in more than 95% of cases. What part of this do you guys not understand.

Quoted message said:

5) MOst of the fat in the low-carb diet was *added* oils, do the added oils stay on by next
morning? I mean the menu for low-carb was "salad", chicken fish.. The meats were lean, as they
point out the diet was low in animal fat..

Keep grasping at straws.... ya might grab a good one yet.

Quoted message said:

6)*true* metabolic trials have shown no difference between low-carb and low-fat in terms of weight
loss. this study is *far* from being controlled, obviously.

*true* metabolic trials have obviously failed then, haven't they. Simply because they did not find
or predict this kind of observation, that low-carb dieters can eat 20% more calories than low-fat
dieters and get similar results.

This study sounds quite well controlled, and fairly well designed, especially compared to
previous studies that were designed with specific biases in mind, such as the famous chocolate
cake study. :-)

TC

tcomeau said:

Calories mean squat. Check out this story:

canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗

quote:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on
standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't it?

No, of course not, ignoramus. Why don't you go read the energy chapter in a standard nutritional
biochemistry textbook, so you can stop wasting bandwidth with your repetitious failure to comprehend
energy balance.

-Jay

tcomeau said:

Quoted message said:

Very low-fat diets have been shown much more convincingly than low-carb to reduce bodyweight
*even when* the calories of the diet are kept the same. (by no means a defiance of the calorie
principle either)

NO. Low-fat diets fail in more than 95% of cases. What part of this do you guys not understand.

Haven't we just been through this? There is no evidence that low carb diets have a higher long term
success rate than any other diet. Futhermore, studies do show that people who successfully keep
weight off over the long haul follow a low fat diet.

Jay Tanzman <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

Calories mean squat. Check out this story:

canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗

quote:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on
standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't it?

No, of course not, ignoramus. Why don't you go read the energy chapter in a standard nutritional
biochemistry textbook, so you can stop wasting bandwidth with your repetitious failure to
comprehend energy balance.

-Jay

The odd thing is that I *have* read *several* standard nutritional biochemistry textbooks, and
furthermore, I've actually read the studies that they referenced in the so-called *energy chapter*.
I've also read the seminal atwater studies and many studies that preceded and followed the atwater
studies and I still haven't found the one groundbreaking study that first postulated or later
confirmed the idea that the second Law of Thermodynamics is applicable to the human body. It was
never done. It was *assumed*. Hence todays rock solid mainstream belief in the calorie theory which
has led us to unprecedented huge numbers of incidences of obesity and obesity related disease. Since
I am the so-called ignoramus and you insist that I am wrong, maybe you can educate us with your
incredible brilliance and provide for us the name of the study and the scientist or researcher who
made this monumental discovery and proved beyond doubt that the second Law of Thermodynamics applies
to the human body.

Show me the money. Who is it who found and proved that the law of thermo applies to the human body?
What is the name of the seminal study or studies that proved it beyond a doubt? This is the
fundamental key to todays understanding of the nutritional sciences. This little piece of data
should be easy to find. Everything about the calorie theory rests on it. Prove it to us.

TC

The people didn't eat more in terms of food quanity, only caleries. With fat having double caliers
by measure, for the same calerie intake one eats less then with foods higher in carbs and proteine
and fiber and other food material. They also consume less of the many nutrients which the fat
displaces. People on a low carb higher fat diet just take less food into their mouth. It will be
interesting to see the final answer to account for the difference, where do the extra caleries go,
or is it an artifact of the study somehow?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on
standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't it?

No, of course not, ignoramus. Why don't you go read the energy chapter in a standard nutritional
biochemistry textbook, so you can stop wasting bandwidth with your repetitious failure to
comprehend energy balance.

-Jay

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (wuzzy) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Calories mean squat. Check out this story:

canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗

quote:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks
on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window,
doesn't it?

TC

Comments🙁thanks to September for pointing out the major discrepancy)

aside from that,
1)the study is only 1/3rd the size of GD Foster's, and 1/4th the amount of time. GD Foster (the
largest and best study to interpret atkins so far) found no difference between low-carb and
low-kcal after one year. GD Foster is extending his study to 5 years - we hope extending the
diets will be able to show some difference, hopefully. GD Foster is cited as being pro low fat
in the article, interestingly.

They did find a difference between low-carb vs low-cal. There were several pounds difference. You
guys just seem to conveniently choose to ignore it. This study appears to be significantly better
controlled than the GD Foster study. The GD Foster study just gave the participants some
information about the respective diets they were supposed to follow and told them to follow it
with little or no further attempts to monitor or control food intake. This study actually had the
food prepared for them on a daily basis.

Okay so the atkins diet doesnt have much detectable effect at one year compared to low-carb (ie.,
the error of the estimated difference was greater than the actual difference) and we don't have any
statistical data to determine whether harvard diet works better than the low kcal after 3 mths.. In
fact we don't even know whether there was a difference between the low fat, or the two low carbs -
it is possible all three lost equal amount of weight. This would explain why they (rightly) are not
much intrigued by the differences in the diets and are more intrigued by the fact that the extra
kcal diet lost weight, which is not amazing considering they had to go get their food (even keeping
food records causes lost weight, let alone going to pick it up)..

So its possible all three lost equal amounts of weight, we are not given data to exclude this
possibility.

Its funny that the report mentions that atkins foundation funded the study without reading the
methods.. I assume the author was trying to make it sound more legitimate.

[email hidden] (wuzzy) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (wuzzy) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> Calories mean squat. Check out this story:
>
> canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗
>
> quote:
>
> "The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers
> intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more
> than folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."
>
> Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't
> it?
>
> TC

Comments🙁thanks to September for pointing out the major discrepancy)

aside from that,
1)the study is only 1/3rd the size of GD Foster's, and 1/4th the amount of time. GD Foster
(the largest and best study to interpret atkins so far) found no difference between low-carb
and low-kcal after one year. GD Foster is extending his study to 5 years - we hope extending
the diets will be able to show some difference, hopefully. GD Foster is cited as being pro
low fat in the article, interestingly.

They did find a difference between low-carb vs low-cal. There were several pounds difference.
You guys just seem to conveniently choose to ignore it. This study appears to be significantly
better controlled than the GD Foster study. The GD Foster study just gave the participants some
information about the respective diets they were supposed to follow and told them to follow it
with little or no further attempts to monitor or control food intake. This study actually had
the food prepared for them on a daily basis.

Okay so the atkins diet doesnt have much detectable effect at one year compared to low-carb (ie.,
the error of the estimated difference was greater than the actual difference) and we don't have
any statistical data to determine whether harvard diet works better than the low kcal after 3
mths.. In fact we don't even know whether there was a difference between the low fat, or the two
low carbs - it is possible all three lost equal amount of weight. This would explain why they
(rightly) are not much intrigued by the differences in the diets and are more intrigued by the
fact that the extra kcal diet lost weight, which is not amazing considering they had to go get
their food (even keeping food records causes lost weight, let alone going to pick it up)..

So its possible all three lost equal amounts of weight, we are not given data to exclude this
possibility.

Its funny that the report mentions that atkins foundation funded the study without reading the
methods.. I assume the author was trying to make it sound more legitimate.

You are grasping at straws, wuzzy.

TC

jmk <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

In article said:

Futhermore, studies do show that people who successfully keep weight off over the long haul
follow a low fat diet.

Can you furnish cites that compare groups on LC vs. LF diets and long term success weight loss
maintenance?

Susan

Here's an article about it: naaso.org20001030.aspOpen ↗

Basically, they like low carb short term but found in a seperate study that more of the long term
weight loss people were not low carb. Since Atkins has been around for a while, that was kind of
surprising to me. I have seen this reported in other studies as well. These ones used 30 pound and
one year as their cutoffs for long term and 90 carbs as the cutoff for low carb.

Strange thing about this story:

"Data from this registry found that only 204 of 2,681 NWCR subjects reported eating less than 90
grams of carbohydrates a day. Of those only 25 subjects reported eating a diet that was less than 24
percent carbohydrate."

On a diet of 1500 kcal per day, which is quite low in calories, to make up 50% of calories you would
need about 185 grams of carbs. I use the number of 50% because the *healthy* low-fat/high-carb diet
is supposed to comprise 55 to 60% carbs.

90 grams of carbs in a diet of 1500 kcal/day is 24%, which is very low in carbs even compared to the
Atkins diet restrictive induction phase.

The Zone Diet aims for around 40% carbs. Atkins diet aims for 20% only in its more restrictive
induction phase and usually balances out to around 30% to 40% carbs.

Why did this study not count those whose diets contained between 24% and 40% carbs as part of the
low-carb group? Sounds as if they wanted to come up with low numbers on purpose.

TC

jmk <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

In article said:

Futhermore, studies do show that people who successfully keep weight off over the long haul
follow a low fat diet.

Can you furnish cites that compare groups on LC vs. LF diets and long term success weight loss
maintenance?

Susan

This one is newer and also kind of interesting: fda.gov102 fat.htmlOpen ↗

"These successful losers report four common behaviors, says Wing. They eat a low-fat,
high-carbohydrate diet, they monitor themselves by weighing in frequently, they are very
physically active, and they eat breakfast."

"Six years after their weight loss, most of the registry's successful losers still report eating a
low-calorie, low-fat diet, with about 24 percent of calories from fat."

This is from the same people that gave us the wonderfully un-scientific food pyramid that has led to
the current obesity epidemic. This is more propaganda than it is science.

TC

jmk said:

This one is newer and also kind of interesting: fda.gov102 fat.htmlOpen ↗

This one is nothing more than FDA's propaganda, not exactly research.

--
Marcio Watanabe

tcomeau said:

jmk <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

In article <[email hidden]>, jmk <[email hidden]> writes:

>Futhermore, studies do show that people who successfully keep weight off over the long haul
>follow a low fat diet.
>

Can you furnish cites that compare groups on LC vs. LF diets and long term success weight loss
maintenance?

Susan

This one is newer and also kind of interesting: fda.gov102 fat.htmlOpen ↗

"These successful losers report four common behaviors, says Wing. They eat a low-fat,
high-carbohydrate diet, they monitor themselves by weighing in frequently, they are very
physically active, and they eat breakfast."

"Six years after their weight loss, most of the registry's successful losers still report eating a
low-calorie, low-fat diet, with about 24 percent of calories from fat."

This is from the same people that gave us the wonderfully un-scientific food pyramid that has led
to the current obesity epidemic. This is more propaganda than it is science.

TC

Did you actually read the story or did you base this solely on the fact that the domain is fda.gov?

"tcomeau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Calories mean squat. Check out this story:

canada.comstory.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

quote:

"The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing
evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than folks on
standard lowfat plans and still lose weight."

Now, if this is correct then it completely throws the calorie theory out the window, doesn't it?

TC

Well, it must inevitably lead to a reassessment of the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie"
concept, if we are going to advance science rather than adhere to politics. ;-)

The report that led to the recent news release was not a published study. It was a research summary
presented at a conference. However, that finding is not novel. In fact, if you look at the latter
three abstracts I provide here, the evidence has been around for decades.

Lar

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Apr;88(4):1617-23. Related Articles, Links

A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on
body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.

University of Cincinnati and Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA.
[email hidden]

Untested alternative weight loss diets, such as very low carbohydrate diets, have unsubstantiated
efficacy and the potential to adversely affect cardiovascular risk factors. Therefore, we designed a
randomized, controlled trial to determine the effects of a very low carbohydrate diet on body
composition and cardiovascular risk factors. Subjects were randomized to 6 months of either an ad
libitum very low carbohydrate diet or a calorie-restricted diet with 30% of the calories as fat.
Anthropometric and metabolic measures were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Fifty-three
healthy, obese female volunteers (mean body mass index, 33.6 +/- .3 kg/m(2)) were randomized; 42
(79%) completed the trial. Women on both diets reduced calorie consumption by comparable amounts at
3 and 6 months. The very low carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 1.0
kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 +/- 0.67 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.75 kg; P < 0.01) than the low fat diet
group. Mean levels of blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and insulin were within normal ranges
in both groups at baseline. Although all of these parameters improved over the course of the study,
there were no differences observed between the two diet groups at 3 or 6 months. beta-
Hydroxybutyrate increased significantly in the very low carbohydrate group at 3 months (P = 0.001).
Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for
short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important
cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

N Engl J Med. 2003 May 22;348(21):2074-81. Related Articles, Links

A low-carbohydrate as compared with a low-fat diet in severe obesity.

Samaha FF, Iqbal N, Seshadri P, Chicano KL, Daily DA, McGrory J, Williams T, Williams M, Gracely
EJ, Stern L.

Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center,
Philadelphia, USA. [email hidden]

BACKGROUND: The effects of a carbohydrate-restricted diet on weight loss and risk factors for
atherosclerosis have been incompletely assessed. METHODS: We randomly assigned 132 severely obese
subjects (including 77 blacks and 23 women) with a mean body-mass index of 43 and a high prevalence
of diabetes (39 percent) or the metabolic syndrome (43 percent) to a carbohydrate-restricted
(low-carbohydrate) diet or a calorie- and fat-restricted (low-fat) diet. RESULTS: Seventy-nine
subjects completed the six-month study. An analysis including all subjects, with the last
observation carried forward for those who dropped out, showed that subjects on the low-carbohydrate
diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet (mean [+/-SD], -5.8+/-8.6 kg vs. -1.9+/-4.2 kg;
P=0.002) and had greater decreases in triglyceride levels (mean, -20+/-43 percent vs. -4+/-31
percent; P=0.001), irrespective of the use or nonuse of hypoglycemic or lipid-lowering medications.
Insulin sensitivity, measured only in subjects without diabetes, also improved more among subjects
on the low-carbohydrate diet (6+/-9 percent vs. -3+/-8 percent, P=0.01). The amount of weight lost
(P<0.001) and assignment to the low-carbohydrate diet (P=0.01) were independent predictors of
improvement in triglyceride levels and insulin sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Severely obese subjects
with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a
carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement
in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost.
This finding should be interpreted with caution, given the small magnitude of overall and
between-group differences in weight loss in these markedly obese subjects and the short duration of
the study. Future studies evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes are needed before a
carbohydrate-restricted diet can be endorsed. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society

Nutr Metab. 1978;22(5):269-77. Related Articles, Links

Comparative studies in obese subjects fed carbohydrate-restricted and high carbohydrate
1,000-calorie formula diets.

Rabast U, Kasper H, Schonborn J.

45 obese subjects were fed a high-carbohydrate, relatively low-fat, or a low-carbohydrate,
relatively high-fat 1,000-calorie (4.14MJ) formula diet. The diet provided for an isoenergetic
substitution of 170 g of carbohydrates for 75 g of fat. Weight reduction up to day 30 was
significantly higher in the subjects on the carbohydrate-restricted diet. There were no significant
differences between the water and electrolyte balances. The mean total weight reduction achieved on
the high-carbohydrate diet was 9.8 +/- 4.5kg with a mean daily weight loss of 298 +/- 80g, while the
corresponding values on the carbohydrate-restricted diet were 14 +/- 7.2 kg and 362 +/- 91 g/day,
respectively.

Int J Obes. 1979;3(3):201-11. Related Articles, Links

Dietetic treatment of obesity with low and high-carbohydrate diets: comparative studies and
clinical results.

Rabast U, Schonborn J, Kasper H.

In spite of numerous studies in the literature, it is still questionable as to whether the
isocaloric exchange of carbohydrate and fat, in the form of a diet, leads to different degrees of
weight loss. In comparative studies, obese patients given a low-carbohydrate (4.14 MJ [1000 kcal])
formula diet (diet Ia) lost 14.0 +/- 1.4 kg and those given an iso-energetic high-carbohydrate diet
(diet Ib) 9.8 +/- 0.9 kg. The degree of weight loss was significantly different. Daily weight losses
were 362 g and 298 g respectively. Comparative studies of high and low-carbohydrate (7.83 MJ [1900
kcal]) formula diets (diets IIa and b) with a greater number of calories did not show any
significant difference. However, there was a greater mean weight loss with the low-carbohydrate diet
(351 g/day) compared with that under the high-carbohydrate diet (296 g/day). Evaluation of 117
patients treated with formula diets resulted in a weight loss of over 9 kg in 102 obese patients and
over 18 kg in 52 patients. The good response to the low-carbohydrate diet was partly responsible for
the successful therapy.

Ann Nutr Metab. 1981;25(6):341-9. Related Articles, Links

Loss of weight, sodium and water in obese persons consuming a high- or low-carbohydrate diet.

Rabast U, Vornberger KH, Ehl M.

Isocaloric 5.61 mJ (1,340 kcal) formula diets involving the isocaloric exchange of fat and
carbohydrate were fed to 21 obese persons selected for

over three groups. The weight loss observed during the carbohydrate-restricted diets was
significantly greater than during the high-carbohydrate diet. After 28 days of treatment the weight
loss recorded on the high-carbohydrate diet was 9.5 +/- 0.7 kg, as compared to 11.4 +/- .7 kg (p
less than 0.05) on the corn oil-containing diet and 12.5 +/- 0.9 kg (p less than 0.01) on the
butter-fat-containing diet. The weight loss achieved was not dependent on the type of fat
administered (saturated vs. polyunsaturated). When calculated cumulatively, sodium excretion during
the first 7 days was significantly greater on the low-carbohydrate diet, whereas after 28 days the
total amount of sodium excreted was highest on the high-carbohydrate diet. Potassium excretion
during the low-carbohydrate diets was significantly greater for as long as 14 days, but at the end
of the experimental period the observed differences no longer attained statistical significance. At
no time did the intake and loss of fluid and the balances calculated therefrom show significant
differences. From the findings obtained it appears that the alterations in the water and electrolyte
balance observed during the low-carbohydrate diets are reversible phenomena and should thus not be
regarded as causal agents of the different weight reduction.

14 Oct 2003 16:15:36 -0700 in article

(wuzzy) said:

4)Like the other poster pointed out what happened to being very low fat(<<30%) and high fiber. High
fiber, low-GI diets can *reduce* bodyweight and improve serum hdl/tag/ldl.

I would like divert a little from weight loss issue to the health effects of discussed diets. I
haven't followed this low-carb discussion very closely, so I'm not sure whether this rather
interesting study by Sharman et al. has been mentioned:

Sharman MJ, Kraemer WJ, Love DM, Avery NG, Gomez AL, Scheett TP, Volek JS. A ketogenic diet
favorably affects serum biomarkers for cardiovascular disease in normal-weight men. J Nutr. 2002
Jul;132(7):1879-85. PMID: 12097663 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
nutrition.org1879Open ↗ (full text) ncbi.nlm.nih.goventrezOpen ↗
/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12097663&dopt=Abstract

In this study low carb diet seemed to have surprisingly favorable effect on some CVD risk factors,
it even increased the size of LDL particles. In contrast the authors clam that

"Numerous studies now suggest that high-carbohydrate diets can raise TAG levels, create small,
dense LDL particles, and reduce HDL cholesterol (i.e., atherogenic dyslipidemia)—a combination
along with insulin resistance, that has been termed syndrome X (42 ,43 )."

Below some citations:

"ABSTRACT Very low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets are popular yet little is known regarding the
effects on serum biomarkers for cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study examined the effects of
a 6-wk ketogenic diet on fasting and postprandial serum biomarkers in 20 normal- weight,
normolipidemic men. Twelve men switched from their habitual diet (17% protein, 47% carbohydrate
and 32% fat) to a ketogenic diet (30% protein, 8% carbohydrate and 61% fat) and eight control
subjects consumed their habitual diet for 6 wk. Fasting blood lipids, insulin, LDL particle
size, oxidized LDL and postprandial triacylglycerol (TAG) and insulin responses to a fat- rich
meal were determined before and after treatment. There were significant decreases in fasting
serum TAG (-33%), postprandial lipemia after a fat-rich meal (-29%), and fasting serum insulin
concentrations (-34%) after men consumed the ketogenic diet. Fasting serum total and LDL
cholesterol and oxidized LDL were unaffected and HDL cholesterol tended to increase with the
ketogenic diet (+11.5%; P = .066). In subjects with a predominance of small LDL particles
pattern B, there were significant increases in mean and peak LDL particle diameter and the
percentage of LDL-1 after the ketogenic diet. There were no significant changes in blood lipids
in the control group. To our knowledge this is the first study to document the effects of a
ketogenic diet on fasting and postprandial CVD biomarkers independent of weight loss. The
results suggest that a short-term ketogenic diet does not have a deleterious effect on CVD risk
profile and may improve the lipid disorders characteristic of atherogenic dyslipidemia

[...]

There were changes in the distribution of the LDL subfractions that would be considered
favorable in terms of CVD. We observed general increases in the mean and peak LDL particle sizes
during the ketogenic diet, which were more pronounced in subjects that exhibited a pattern B
distribution at the start of the study. Individuals with pattern B exhibit a predominance of
small dense lipoproteins and this distribution is associated with increased risk of CVD (13 ,14
) and was recently shown to be the best discriminate factor for the presence of CVD even when
adjusting for other risk factors (21 ). Although the characterization of pattern B is likely to
have a genetic origin (22 ), changes in diet are known to influence the distribution of LDL
subclasses. For example, switching to a fat-rich diet (46% vs. 24% of total energy) was shown to
increase mean particle diameter and large LDL-1 mass and decrease small dense LDL- III
cholesterol (28 ), while reductions in dietary fat have the opposite effect (6 ,7 ). Despite the
changes in LDL size, we did not observe any significant changes in oxidized LDL concentrations.
Collectively these studies indicate that when dietary fat is reduced, the distribution of LDL
moves toward a smaller more dense particle and when dietary fat is increased the distribution of
LDL moves toward a larger less dense particle. The reason some individuals are more stable in
their LDL subclass distribution in response to changes in diet is unknown but is likely to
reflect complex interactions between metabolic and genetic traits that are influenced to varying
extents depending on the level of dietary fat (1 ,7 ).

We observed a significant decrease in fasting and postprandial insulin responses after the
ketogenic diet. Decreases in resting insulin concentrations have been reported in response to
3–4 d of a low-carbohydrate diet high in fat (34 –38 ). The mechanism for such a response
probably resides in the greater reliance on fat oxidation induced by dietary carbohydrate
restriction (39 ) and subsequent reduced requirement for insulin to assist in glucose uptake. To
our knowledge, the reduced postprandial insulin response to a fat-rich meal observed after a
ketogenic diet has not been reported in the literature. According to our estimate of insulin
resistance using fasting levels of glucose and insulin, subjects in this study were not insulin
resistant and there was no adverse effect of the ketogenic diet on insulin sensitivity. This is
in agreement with other studies showing no adverse effects on glucose metabolism or insulin
resistance after ketogenic diets using the insulin clamp technique (40 ,41 ).

Numerous studies now suggest that high-carbohydrate diets can raise TAG levels, create small,
dense LDL particles, and reduce HDL cholesterol (i.e., atherogenic dyslipidemia)—a combination
along with insulin resistance, that has been termed syndrome X (42 ,43 ). Syndrome X is
postulated to be resistance to insulin-mediated glucose disposal by muscle (44 ), 30% of adult
males and 10% to 15% of postmenopausal women have this particular syndrome X profile, which is
associated with several-fold increase in heart disease risk. Replacing saturated fat with
carbohydrate appears to accentuate insulin concentrations and the atherogenic dyslipidemia
associated with syndrome X (44 ,45 ). The ketogenic diet in this study resulted in favorable
responses in fasting TAG, postprandial lipemia, HDL-C, LDL particle size, and insulin levels in
healthy normolipidemic men. Although the duration of the diet was short (6 wk), these data
suggest that a ketogenic diet does not have an adverse effect on accepted biochemical risk
factors for CVD and improves those associated with syndrome X."

--
Matti Narkia

In article said:

I still haven't found the one groundbreaking study that first postulated or later confirmed the
idea that the second Law of Thermodynamics is applicable to the human body. It was never done. It
was *assumed*....... maybe you can educate us with your incredible brilliance and provide for us
the name of the study and the scientist or researcher who made this monumental discovery and
proved beyond doubt that the second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the human body.

Quoted message said:

Show me the money. Who is it who found and proved that the law of thermo applies to the human
body? What is the name of the seminal study or studies that proved it beyond a doubt?

That is not the way science operates. Like all laws and theories, the laws of thermodynamics were
proposed, and then we have spent more than a hundred years testing them. There has been no
supportable experimental result which is inconsistent with the three laws, and we therefore grow
more confident that the laws are good. We are never absolutely certain. We never have absolute
certainty in science, but the confidence soon becomes so great that we do not bother to question
it any more.

By the way, it is the first law of thermodynamics that states the law of conservation of energy.
The second law states that the entropy of the universe is increasing, i.e. entropy(disorder)
increases in any spontaneous process. More than 40 years ago, I can remember reading a book by
"LeComte du Noüy" called "Human Destiny" in which he declared that the second law of
thermodynamics did not apply to life. It appealed to me at the time, but as I discovered when I
studied and then taught thermodynamics, he was wrong because he did not really understand, how
entropy can actually decrease in a certain area at the expense of the surroundings (e.g. a
crystal growing from a solution).

I don't think that you will find a reputable scientist that feels the laws of thermodynamics are
in jeopardy because of these experimental observations. They apply to open and closed systems. An
open system is just one that exchanges matter (as well as energy) with the surroundings. In the
case of the present experiments I am confident that the problem will be found in some effect such
as the efficiency of conversion of various nutrients to things like fat, energy excrement, etc.
Certainly there is a lot of room for such explanations in view of the fact that I can eat twice
as much food as my wife and don't put on any weight while she does.

Elmer