All I know, really, is that when I eat a high carbohydrate diet, I have to eat fewer calories to maintain my weight than I need to lose weight on a high fat, low carbohydrate diet. I doubt that I (and other people on this forum) are freaks of nature and in constant violation of the rules of thermodynamics. I'll have to dig around and find that study done -- on people, no less -- a few years ago that showed that people on a higher calorie, low carbohydrate diet lost more weight than people on a low calorie diet.

Lots of information on this in Good Calories, Bad Calories.

And this is after you gained the water weight back from low carbing?

Now you tell us?!? But, that's the topic!

I wonder how many women in that study that Eades quotes have PCOS. That would definitely change things as PCOS causes a low metabolic rate/low temps and a low carb diet reduces symptoms of PCOS. I know it says healthy women, but I wonder if they tested for it.

Maybe the metabolic advantage is just about fixing metabolic problems (as Matador pointed out about IR).

Appeal to authority. Plus Eades has a clear slant on the issue to try and salvage his untenable claims. Even Eades admits that calories matter.

How do you know for sure? Lower carb eating (or more likely, higher protein) keeps you more satiated leading to lower caloric consumption.... magic

Please produce that study - I hope that it was a study that had very reliable method of determining energy intake/expenditure.

As for GCBC - lots of information indeed - but much of it is cherry-picked data to support GT's untenable claims.

This is the distinction that many of the LCT falter. It is one thing to say that the existence of an MA is PLAUSIBLE. It is quite another to suggest it exists outright or even to suggest it is "likely" in the face of evidence that has consistently shown otherwise.

Suggesting that MA is real without producing evidence of such is misleading and irresponsible. You can peek at the original link to the heated debate and you will see the same red herrings, appeals to authority and shifting the burden of proof fallacies from Fred.

Scars, why do you care about this?

Which claims are untenable? Has anyone written a rebuttal or shown which data he left out? I am not saying he's right if no one has, but I've heard so many critics use the cherry pick phrase, but the only time I've had someone bring up data he supposedly ignored, they mentioned studies he actually addressed.

As much as I am a Taubes supporter, I would love to see a rebuttal that was based upon research and not ideology.



I don't think that you'll find many (if any) low carb proponents who will claim you can eat all the calories you can physically consume and lose weight on low carb. And I think there is a difference when you add the "want" factor in.

I think metabolic advantage is the last thing low carbers should be looking at as justification for low carb. If it exists and it's not just about fixing what's disordered in certain people, there are so many other stronger benefits to low carb.

I could give a crap less about eating another 200 or 300 calories a day as long as I don't feel deprived.

Well, what I was saying is that when I ate a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet, aside from being miserable, I couldnt eat more than 1500 calories a day or else I'd gain weight. On a low-carbohydrate diet, I eat between 1800-2200 calories a day and I lose weight.

Obviously, there's something a bit more complicated at play than calories in/calories out.

Edit to add: There is no one more conscientious of calories than a dieter. Since I've lost almost 50 pounds, I seriously doubt this is just water weight loss.

http://thyroid.about.com/b/2004/05/...ow-fat-diet.htm

And what data refutes what Taubes reported? I've seen that complaint in one other place, but without cites there either. You'd think if there was this mountain of evidence that Taubes ignored, that mountain of evidence would be used by his critics (of which he has many). Usually the attacks I see on Taubes are ad hominen.

Edit to add: http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/140/10/769.pdf so it's not just a news blurb.

Au contraire mon amis.....

From my singular observation; "our faith" is what seems to be keeping a few of you apart.

"Birds of a feather, flock together".... that would be a fair analogy of the faith I've observed in this old argument that seems to have no resolution.

This thread however, does make for good entertainment..... so, thanks...

The problem with that study is that it could mean that there is a metabolic advantage or it could meant that people eat less on low carbs.

You have to really control everything. Same metabolic rates. Same activity levels. Same calories. Or all these have to be adjusted. A lot of these studies that compare diets are not really comparing calorie to calorie.

They do show low carb's promise to people who want to lose weight and want to improve their health.

Hmmmm, that's not the study that had people on a higher calorie low carb diet? I thought it was from 2004. I'll double check this.