You just wanted an excuse to use the little humping agree man, didn't you?

Alisa, you know me too well.

Yes, and you know me too.

Just agreeing with you, is all...

At first, everyone bought into the concept of the metabolic advantage. Then everyone started reverting back to the calories in, calories out view of it, saying low carb just naturally reduced caloric intake and that's why the weight loss occured.

I'm not buying it completely.

I can't prove it, but I don't think anyone has disproven it yet either, I do think that there is a metabolic advantage. Though the physics of calories in vs calories out are right, I think that calories *out* are higher on a low-carb diet and than on a high-carb diet. There is a thread in the research forum now about the futile protein cycle. I do buy the idea that some food might be less available for the body to use and so we waste calories either converting it to a usable fuel or whatever.

I think where it gets confusing is that it might be a statistically insignificant amount of metabolic advantage for some, and it might be a high amount for others. I think like everything else, that metabolic advantage will vary with the person. That's why not everyone agrees about it, they don't experience it the same way.

JMHO.

Yay Valerie..

I agree, Valerie. And Gost, you agree too? Because it still falls in with cals in/cals out. JL53's self experiment doesn't change that...again, he ate less calories than he burned, when he ate low carb, and burned less than he ate when he went high carb. Maintenance levels can fluctuate, you know, based on a lot of factors. It's still cals in/cals out. I think Val's post helped explain some of this.

No, I agree with most of what Valerie says, particularly her statement on the metabolic advantage of low carbing..

Again, I feel that supressing insulin is more of a factor than calories..irregardless of what Mr. Mcdonald has to say..Yes calories are important,but I have seen people lose weight on hypercaloric diets..

Another instance, I had an exgirlfriend who did a low carb diet..zero excercise. Her only form of excercise was picking up bags of dog food while cashering..

She ate eggs,butter,beef..all high fat and high protein..she lost alot of weight and she had a 6 pak that I would kill for..

So this was a case of calories not being a factor..the factor was her food choices

Plus there have been numerous studies lately saying you will lose more weight on low carbs than higher carbs faire regardless of calories.

Val, if you think about it people (read: lay folks) bought into this metabolic advantage notion because Atkins said it existed, and he based this on one study, which has been disproven since then. I'll post it later, as I'm running late this morning. There were folks disagreeing with him on this and saying that more research was needed in this area.

In the first chapter of Colpo's latest e-book he gives a chart of all the metabolic ward studies that have compared isocaloric diets using different macronutrients published in English, and if there was a metabolic advantage it should have shown up under these controlled conditions. Remember, these folks were treated like human lab rats. They didn't go home at the end of the day and report what they ate. The researchers knew down the the very gram of what they were eating, so that eliminates the errors that are more than common with free living folks. I've copied that chart as a jpg, which can be viewed here :

I'm sorry to just post a quick reply, but I need to run. I'll post a longer one later. I'm really enjoying this thread guys . . .

Interesting chart, Muata. Some of those clinical trials were awfully damn low in calories, 626, 830, 559, 50% maintenance, 590, 615, 600, 800, 1000. Possibly at such low caloric levels, the metabolic advantage isn't significant. There is only one diet that says calories average 1900 or more (though there are some that don't list the caloric value). Maybe the metabolic advantage is more evident in higher caloric intakes or maintenance levels?

The study that was done relatively recently (2 or 3 years ago)that showed a metabolic advantage, I don't see it on Colpo's list. I'll try to track it down, I wonder if the calorie levels were higher on that one? Actually, now that I think of it, I don't think it was an in-house study, so it wouldn't have made his list.

I don't know. I'm not committed to one belief system over the other, I just have a gut feeling that there is *something* to low-carb other than just appetite suppression due to ketosis.

Oh brutha. Trying to explain it again is making my brain hurt.

Gos and Dane, if I didn't know for a fact that Gos is a married man, I would think that you two were an old married couple the way you guys bicker on this forum. (This is just a joke guys . . )

Anyway, Val, I hear you sister and the problem is that there is so much research that needs to be done on man as the fat adapted, LC eater, as opposed to the carb eater. For me, I don't bother too much about the metabolic advantage stuff because I know, and science is on our side, that eating LC is the healthiest and most natural diet for us as a species. The way that I feel, look, and perform on a LC diet is an advantage enough for me.

I keep harping on the energy equation because of the metabolic ward studies, and folks who need to lose weight don't need to hear that there's a free lunch or that calories don't count. I know that those posting in this thread don't think like this, but we're not the majority on this forum--no disrespect intended to the other members, but this has been my observation. Losing weight and keeping it off is not easy, and many people love Atkins because they fall for the calories don't count sales pitch he gives them. IMO, this is just wrong and misleading.

If there does turn out to be an advantage, I don't see it being a huge one. For instance, a person can eat 500-1000 calories over what my body needs and still lose weight because s/he is eating LC. I don't see it and I base this totally on my own experiences.

On the other hand, there are folks that are taking a different approach to the metabolic advantage theory that may yield some proof once it's applied. I know that it may seem as if I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not a zealot or dogmatic about anything. Here's the link to a recent published study. Let me know what you guys think.

Normal maintenance calories for me are about 2500-2800 per day. Over a one week period I averaged over 4000 calories per day. 90% fat, 9% protein, and 1% carb. Over this period I took in an extra 8400 calories above maintenance. I "should" have gained about 2.5 pounds. I didn't. In fact, I lost 1 pound. Those extra calories found some way out, because they were not stored. Yes, it is calories in vs calories out. There is more than one way out.

It's that spice that keeps life (the forum) interesting!

Muata, I bookmarked your study for reading later--no time today--but it looks promising. Thanks for sharing!

Not it's making sense.

Gee Dane, I'm sorry that your head hurts..I'm just some ingnoramus who just doesn't get all that "scientific stuff" and the"etched in stone principles" that you espouse to.

Maybe when I get to the level of your years of experience in the health and fitness/wellness industry I may be able to comprehend some of your posts... that is my eternal dream.

Until then I will go back to reading "Weightlifitng for Dummies" and "Low carb diet for dummies"

Or maybe I should just google all day..hmmm