Whatever works. My cousin eats pizza and beer and looks like a male model. Apparently that works for him, although I shudder to think what's going on at the molecular level. If many people can't lose 'enough' weight or 'enough' inches without exercise then that's what works for them. If some people can lose it all and keep it off on zero exercise, then that's what works for them. Metabolism between individuals -- genders as well as size -- is ridiculously variable. I think it's fair for people to get a dose of both ideas to consider and try out. Up until now there's only been one idea. Taubes, in general, provided another. The outrage over that will probably get more genuine evaluation of the issue done than if he'd not brought it up at all, so I figure on the whole it's a good thing. :-)

We retain exactly as much muscle as our diet allows, and about as much as the exercise requires. In other words, if you exercise more than none for example, you will retain more muscle. But the point here is that you will retain muscle without exercise, as long as the diet allows it.

8 week program and only 4.47kg average total weight loss on diet alone? That's a seriously poor performance for a diet. Cutting out carbs will produce much, much better weight loss in a much, much shorter time. Oh, and all that with zero hunger.

The two statements below are equivalent:


So, if you think my statement is wrong, then you also think Scars' statement is wrong. But that can't be, you've been arguing in favor of exercise, so has he.

How much greater? Was this fat loss compared to that of a diet devoid of carbohydrate? Because, as we know, cutting out all carbohydrate produces the greatest fat loss, bar none.

Then it's obvious that you did not read the part about the sugar cane cutters.

That's ironic. Are you saying there is no evidence? Because, obviously, Gary spent 6 years of his time throwing pencils at the ceiling. But seriously, Taubes knows his stuff unless you disagree, then he's an idiot.

Do you mean that adding fat to replace the lost carbs to keep calories constant, we would not lose weight? That's been refuted.

You presume too much. I did not read just one book. But maybe you did.

Which statement did not have qualification?

It's always been taken into context. The context is fat loss. Like so: Exercise is useless for fat loss.

You think it's food you're eating?

As a matter of fact yes, they compared low carb diets with and with out strength training.

I presume nothing, I am taking your statements at face value, and based on the references provided.

I'm also glad to hear that you make use of your library card, keep reading maybe one day you'll actually learn something you don't already think you know.

Last month I had a treadmill stress test. It showed that during a slow jog I was burning 75% fat and 25% carbs. At a breathless sprint I was burning 90% carbs, 10% fat. Exercise uses both. Whether you gain or lose or maintain body weight depends on what you eat. Food gives me the energy to run. I do it more for its own sake rather than for weight loss.

Then it wasn't low enough. But then again, maybe zero is too low for credibility.