Mon, Jan-28-08, 18:10
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 1,897
|
|
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000
BF:
Progress: 50%
|
|
Quote:
Just a quick question to the Drs. Eades, Wolfgang Lutz, Krasnewski (speaks excellent English), or any one of the many others all over the world, is all it would take to confirm that they've bee observing the necessity of a calorie deficit for bodyfat loss for decades. Not once or twice Nyah, thousands upon thousands of cases. These clinicians are very well placed to know exactly what they are talking about.
Taubes is a science journo, not a low carb clinician. He's a good science journo, no doubt about it. Most of GCBC is a very fine read. And I have no idea why he neglected to explicity mention this fundamental point.
|
Perhaps the very reason Taubes didn't mention that point is that he's a science journalist, and there are no studies that show exactly that point? By that, I mean that the doctors mentioned all have lots of anecdotal evidence of it, but has anyone conducted double blind research (or whatever it's called - I'm obviously not a scientist) to confirm all this anecdotal evidence?
The thing is that not only do we have a lot of anecdotal evidence that people can avoid weight gain on low carb, even when consuming massive amounts of fat calories, there is also some anecdotal evidence that some people still lose when consuming far more calories than they can consume while still losing weight on a low fat, calorie controlled diet.
For instance, notice the following from deirdra's post about her own personal experience with the two types of diets:
Quote:
On high carb (65% cals from carbs, 25% protein, 10% fat) I lost 1lb/wk on 1100 cal iff I exercised 10 hrs/wk (lost nothing without exercise). I was starving all the time.
On low carb (65% cals from fat, 25% protein, 10% carbs) I lost 1lb/wk on 1900 cal if I exercised 0-1.5 hrs/wk. I was satisfied all the time.
If all calories were metabolically identical, I should have lost 3lbs/wk on the high carb diet with the extra 7000 calories/wk deficit (calories not eaten + calories expended in the extra 8.5 hrs of aerobic exercise/wk, conservatively estimated). The 1900 calories on LC DID provide enough of a deficit to lose 1lb/wk, but my body only behaves like a "normal" person's in terms of theoretical weight loss rates if I eat vLC.
Interestingly, 1900 cal/day is what a "normal" 136-lb person should maintain on (that is using the 14cal/lb rate for an active person, as opposed to the 12cal/lb for someone exercising as little as I was). I now maintain on 1900-2000 cals/day, but only if I eat no more than 35g ECC. If I eat that many calories on the SAD "standard american diet", I'll balloon back up to 180-190lbs in 2-3 months (I know because I did it about 20 times in 35 years of yo-yoing). Eating low carb is the only WOL that keeps my weight and relationship with food "normal", i.e. without constant hunger and cravings. I've been maintaining for 19 months now.
|
There are lots of people on these very boards who have noticed similar relationships between calorie consumption and weight loss/maintenance/weight gain, depending on whether their calories come primarily from carbs or primarily from fat.
|